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

The appeal is dismissed

Bench: S.SUJATHA,JAYANT PATEL

263 of the Act. It was his submission that the law is well settled that to assume jurisdiction u/s. 147 of the Act, there should be reason to believe that income chargeable to tax has escaped assessment. Such reason to believe cannot be on a mere change of opinion. This position is well settled by the decision

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

The appeal is dismissed

Bench: N.KUMAR,RATHNAKALA

263 of the Act. It was his submission that the law is well settled that to assume jurisdiction u/s. 147 of the Act, there should be reason to believe that income chargeable to tax has escaped assessment. Such reason to believe cannot be on a mere change of opinion. This position is well settled by the decision

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

263 of the Act. Hence, he prays for dismissal of the appeals. In support of his submissions, he has relied upon the following judgments: (i) (2002) 256 ITR 1 Commissioner of Income Tax vs. Kelvinator of India Ltd. (ii) (2001)116 Taxman 274 (Kar) Commissioner of Income – Tax vs. Hardware Trading Co. (iii) Replika Press Private Limited & Another vs. Deputy

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

263 is any order passed under the Act by the Assessing Officer is erroneous insofar as it is prejudicial to the interest of the revenue. Once the order passed by the Assessing Officer gets reopened, there is no order which can be said to be erroneous insofar as it is prejudicial to the interest of the revenue which confers jurisdiction

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

Bench: K.SOMASHEKAR,UMESH M ADIGA

263 is any order passed under the Act by the Assessing Officer is erroneous insofar as it is prejudicial to the interest of the revenue. Once the order passed by the 36 Assessing Officer gets reopened, there is no order which can be said to be erroneous insofar as it is prejudicial to the interest of the revenue which confers

P ARVIND MAIYA vs. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX

Accordingly, writ petition is allowed

Bench: S.SUJATHA

reassess the income in respect of any issue, which has escaped assessment, and such issue comes to his notice subsequently in the course of the proceedings under this section, notwithstanding that the reasons for such issue have not been included in the reasons recorded under sub-section [2] of section 148. Explanation 4. – For the removal of doubts

P VIKRAM MAIYA vs. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX

Accordingly, writ petition is allowed

Bench: S.SUJATHA

reassess the income in respect of any issue, which has escaped assessment, and such issue comes to his notice subsequently in the course of the proceedings under this section, notwithstanding that the reasons for such issue have not been included in the reasons recorded under sub-section [2] of section 148. Explanation 4. – For the removal of doubts

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

147 (income escaping assessment) and 263 (revision of orders) of the Act. It was also held that it was not open for the assessee to seek deduction or claim expenditure, which had not - 64 - been claimed in the original assessment, which assessment already stood completed, only because a assessment under Section 153A of the Act in pursuance of search

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

147 (income escaping assessment) and 263 (revision of orders) of the Act. It was also held that it was not open for the assessee to seek deduction or claim expenditure, which had not - 64 - been claimed in the original assessment, which assessment already stood completed, only because a assessment under Section 153A of the Act in pursuance of search

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

147 (income escaping assessment) and 263 (revision of orders) of the Act. It was also held that it was not open for the assessee to seek deduction or claim expenditure, which had not - 64 - been claimed in the original assessment, which assessment already stood completed, only because a assessment under Section 153A of the Act in pursuance of search