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 (post substitution vide Finance Act, 2021 with effect from 01.04.2021)
Section 148 (prior to substitution vide Finance Act, 2021 with effect from 01.04.2021) and section 148 (post substitution vide Finance Act, 2021 with effect from 01.04.2021)
Section 150
Section 153(3)(ii) [prior to substitution vide Finance Act, 2016 with effect from 01.06.2016]
Section 153(6)(i) [post substitution

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

u/s. 143(3) of the Act. 24. With regard to reliance placed by the ld. DR on Explanation to section 147, we are of the view that Explanation 1 only lays down that facts and circumstances of each case will have to be looked into to ascertain as to whether there was failure on the part of the assessee

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

The appeal is dismissed

Bench: N.KUMAR,RATHNAKALA

u/s. 143(3) of the Act. 24. With regard to reliance placed by the ld. DR on Explanation to section 147, we are of the view that Explanation 1 only lays down that facts and circumstances of each case will have to be looked into to ascertain as to whether there was failure on the part of the assessee

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

The appeal stands allowed

Bench: S.SUJATHA,HANCHATE SANJEEVKUMAR

147(c)(i) of the I.T.Act. Approval may kindly be accorded u/s 151(1) of I.T.Act 1961 for issue of notice u/s 148 for the A.Y. 2004-05.” 14. From the aforesaid, what could be gathered is that the assessing officer had no independent reason to believe that the deduction claimed by the assessee under Section

COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX vs. M/S GMR HOLDINGS PVT LTD.,

The appeal is dismissed

Bench: S.SUJATHA,VINEET KOTHARI

31. Since we have decided the legal issue relating to reopening u/s. 147 of the Act in favour of the assessee and reassessment order framed on the basis of notice under section

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

Bench: K.SOMASHEKAR,UMESH M ADIGA

31. Whereas, it is further contended that the Department has challenged the aforesaid order passed by the ITAT before this Court u/s 260A of the Act. The objection raised by the counsel for the respondent that against an order passed in a miscellaneous petition, appeal u/s 260A of the Act was not maintainable without there being challenge to the main

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

Bench: K.SOMASHEKAR,UMESH M ADIGA

31 26.In support of his contentions, learned standing counsel has facilitated the following reliances for consideration of the appeal: I) CIT vs. Anil Kumar Bhatia held as under: “18. A perusal of Section 153A shows that it starts with a non obstante clause relating to normal assessment procedure which is covered by Sections 139, 147

P ARVIND MAIYA vs. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX

Accordingly, writ petition is allowed

Bench: S.SUJATHA

31 YEARS No.280/281, “PANCHAJANYA” A.T. HALLI LAYOUT, SHANTHINAGAR BANGALORE-560027. ... PETITIONER [BY SRI A.SHANKAR, SENIOR COUNSEL A/W SRI M.LAVA, ADV.] AND: THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CIRCLE-7[2]1 3RD FLOOR, BMTC BUILDING 80 FEET ROAD, KORAMANGALA BANGALORE-560095. …RESPONDENT [RESPONDENT – SERVED) THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING

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 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 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

THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX vs. M/S MAKINO ASIA PVT LTD

Bench: B.MANOHAR,DILIP B.BHOSALE

Section 271(1)(c)(iii) of the Act i.e., Rs.41,04,239/-. It would be necessary to notice the observations made by the Assessing officer for levying penalty, which read thus:- “The assessee company had filed its original return of income on 31.10.2002. While filing this return, the assessee company was aware that the return filed for asst.year