WIPRO LIMITED vs. THE JOINT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX

Bench: The Hon’Ble Mr. Justice Krishna S.Dixit Writ Petition No.20040/2019 (T-It) Between:

147 deals with re assessment orders. • Sub-section(3) deals with time-limit for making order of fresh assessment in pursuance of an order under section 254 or section 264, by virtue of which the original assessment is either set aside or cancelled. 23 • Sub-section (4) states that where a reference under section 92CA(1) is made during

DELL INDIA PVT LTD vs. THE JOINT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX

Bench: The Hon’Ble Mr.Justice Aravind Kumar

u/s 148 in your case for the AY 2009-10 is not based on a mere change of opinion 7 but is based on the fact an amount of Rs.216,89,00,773/- which was deferred in AY 2009-10 has not been offered in the subsequent assessment year. 3. Regarding deferment of revenue, the DRP in its order

THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX vs. M/S CHAITANYA PROPERTIES PVT LTD.,

The appeal is dismissed

Bench: S.SUJATHA,JAYANT PATEL

147 would give arbitrary powers to the AO to reopen assessments on the basis of "mere change of opinion", which cannot be per se reason to reopen. We must also keep in mind the conceptual difference between power to review and power to reassess. The AO has no power to review; he has the power to reassess. But reassessment

COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS) vs. M/S POST & BSNL EMPLOYEES

The appeal is dismissed

Bench: N.KUMAR,RATHNAKALA

147 would give arbitrary powers to the AO to reopen assessments on the basis of "mere change of opinion", which cannot be per se reason to reopen. We must also keep in mind the conceptual difference between power to review and power to reassess. The AO has no power to review; he has the power to reassess. But reassessment

THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIT(A) vs. M/S HEWLETT PACKARD GLOBALSOFT PVT LTD

Appeals are hereby dismissed by

Bench: ARAVIND KUMAR,VINEET SARAN

u/s 10A. Consequent short levy of tax and surcharge works out to Rs.1,76,39,326/-. Therefore, I have reasons to believe that income chargeable to tax has escaped assessment for the Ay 2003-04”. 14 As per Section 147 of the Act, if the Assessing Officer has reason to believe that any income chargeable to tax has escaped assessment

THE SRI KANNIKAPARAMESWARI CO OP BANK LIMITED vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER

The appeal stands allowed

Bench: S.SUJATHA,HANCHATE SANJEEVKUMAR

u/s 80P of the Act in respect of profit from sale of securities is justified. In view of the above, the objection raised by the Audit my please dropped.” It appears, subsequently, the notice under Section 148 of the Act was issued on 06.07.2009 by the assessing officer. 10. In the case of Commissioner of Income-tax v. Kelvinator

PR. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX vs. SMT. G. LAKSHMI ARUNA

Bench: K.SOMASHEKAR,UMESH M ADIGA

24. As discussed hereinbefore, in terms of proviso to Section 153C of the Act, a reference to the date of the search under the second proviso to Section 153A of the Act has to be construed as the date of handing over of assets/documents belonging to the Assessee (being the 55 person other than the one searched

PR. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX vs. SHRI. GALI JANARDHANA REDDY

Bench: K.SOMASHEKAR,UMESH M ADIGA

24. As discussed hereinbefore, in terms of proviso to Section 153C of the Act, a reference to the date of the search under the second proviso to Section 153A of the Act has to be construed as the date of handing over of assets/documents belonging to the Assessee (being the person other than the one searched) to the AO having

COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX TDS vs. M/S BHARAT HOTELS LIMITED

Appeal stands dismissed

Bench: S.SUJATHA,VINEET SARAN

u/s 201 and 201(1A). However, this is without prejudice to our earlier finding that the order for the asst. years 2002-03 and 2003-04 are barred by limitation.” 7 Challenging the said order of the Tribunal, this appeal has been filed by the Revenue. Though the appeal has been admitted on the questions of law, as mentioned

SRI C M MAHADEVA S/O SRI MANCHE GOWDA vs. THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX

The appeal stands allowed

Bench: B.MANOHAR,VINEET SARAN

u/s 148 for A.Y.2004-05.” (emphasis supplied) 10. From a bare perusal of the aforesaid reasons recorded for reopening the concluded assessment for the assessment year 2004-05, what we notice is that the Assessing Officer was of the opinion that further investigation was required for proceeding to commence for the assessment year 2004-05, and on such basis he opined

THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-III vs. SMT.KAMAKSHI DEVI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is

Bench: S.SUJATHA,VINEET KOTHARI

u/s. 147 is bad in law without appreciating the fact that the department has not accepted the relied upon decision and the same has also been challenged before this Hon'ble High Court of Karnataka in ITA NO.244/2013? 2. Facts leading to filing of this appeal briefly stated are that the assessee is engaged in the business of conducting chits

THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX vs. M/S. IBC KNOWLEDGE PARK PVT. LTD.,

In the result, the appeals filed by the Revenue

Bench: B.V.NAGARATHNA,JAYANT PATEL

24. Learned counsel for the Revenue, however, contended that the Appellate Authorities were not right in holding that a sum of Rs.1.91 crore cannot be disallowed as a deduction. He submitted that the said amount was not reflected in the balance sheet and no particulars had been furnished by the assessee in that regard. Learned counsel contended that the Appellate

THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX vs. M/S. IBC KNOWLEDGE PARK PVT. LTD.,

In the result, the appeals filed by the Revenue

Bench: B.V.NAGARATHNA,JAYANT PATEL

24. Learned counsel for the Revenue, however, contended that the Appellate Authorities were not right in holding that a sum of Rs.1.91 crore cannot be disallowed as a deduction. He submitted that the said amount was not reflected in the balance sheet and no particulars had been furnished by the assessee in that regard. Learned counsel contended that the Appellate

THE COMMISIONER OF INCOME-TAX vs. M/S IBC KNOWLEDGE PARK PVT LTD

In the result, the appeals filed by the Revenue

Bench: B.V.NAGARATHNA,JAYANT PATEL

24. Learned counsel for the Revenue, however, contended that the Appellate Authorities were not right in holding that a sum of Rs.1.91 crore cannot be disallowed as a deduction. He submitted that the said amount was not reflected in the balance sheet and no particulars had been furnished by the assessee in that regard. Learned counsel contended that the Appellate

P ARVIND MAIYA vs. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX

Accordingly, writ petition is allowed

Bench: S.SUJATHA

u/s. 263 is 31/03/2013. Tax effect involved is Rs.1,01,64,058/- 5 a]. if remedial action is taken, details such as section and date of NA - 16 - order demand raised D&CR No. date of collection, if any, appeal against the order etc., b]. if demand varies from the tax effect mentioned in the LAR detailed reasons thereof

P VIKRAM MAIYA vs. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX

Accordingly, writ petition is allowed

Bench: S.SUJATHA

u/s. 263 is 31/03/2013. Tax effect involved is Rs.1,01,97,000/- 5 a]. if remedial action is taken, details such as section and date of NA - 16 - order demand raised D&CR No. date of collection, if any, appeal against the order etc., b]. if demand varies from the tax effect mentioned in the LAR detailed reasons thereof

THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX GULBARGA vs. M/S MANJUNATHA COTTON AND GINNING FACTORY

The appeals are dismissed

Bench: ARAVIND KUMAR,N.KUMAR

147 deals with income escaping assessment. Chapter XXI deals with penalties imposable. 37 Section 271 deals with failure to furnish returns, comply with notices, concealment of income, etc., It reads as under:- “271. FAILURE TO FURNISH RETURNS, COMPLY WITH NOTICES, CONCEALMENT OF INCOME, ETC. (1) If the Assessing Officer or the Commissioner (Appeals) in the course of any proceedings under

PR.COMMISSIONER OF INCOMETAX-2 vs. M/S.EYGBS (INDIA) PVT LTD

Bench: CHIEF JUSTICE,C M JOSHI

u/s 10AA Profit of the undertaking as per computation statement 43,60,79,542 - 7 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:36360-DB ITA No. 107 of 2025 C/W ITA No. 106 of 2025 Add: Voluntary TP adjustment 36,90,62,637 Income from business of the undertaking after voluntary TP adjustment 80,51,42,179 7. The AO had denied