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:

reassessment in terms of Section 153(2); it would simply mean that the orders of the higher forum are to be applied & followed by the assessing officer; . it may be borne in mind that longer time limits are provided in Section 153(3) & second proviso to Section 153(5) because it may entail doing the entire process once over

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

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

Bench: K.SOMASHEKAR,UMESH M ADIGA

37. The principle laid down by this Court in Jaganmohan Rao's case, therefore, is only to the extent that once an assessment is validly reopened by issuance of notice under Section 22(2) of the 1922 Act (corresponding to Section 148 of the Act) the previous under assessment is set aside and the ITO has the jurisdiction and duty

M/S THE KARNATAKA STATE CO-OPERATIVE APEX BANK vs. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX

In the result, the appeal is disposed of

Bench: ALOK ARADHE,HEMANT CHANDANGOUDAR

u/s 148 of the Act on the facts and circumstances of the case? (3) Whether the Tribunal is justified in law in holding that the appellant is not entitled to make additional claim of loss incurred of Rs.8,28,65,052/- in the re- assessment proceedings under section 147 of the Act on the facts and circumstances of the case

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

Bench: K.SOMASHEKAR,UMESH M ADIGA

37. The principle laid down by this Court in Jaganmohan Rao's case, therefore, is only to the extent that once an assessment is validly reopened by issuance 57 of notice under Section 22(2) of the 1922 Act (corresponding to Section 148 of the Act) the previous under assessment is set aside and the ITO has the jurisdiction

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

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

37. Learned counsel for the Revenue contended that the Assessing Officer under Section 153C of the Act has to record satisfaction regarding the material seized in the course of search of a person when it belonged to any other person. But detection of undisclosed income is not material. Relying on certain decisions of the Hon’ble Supreme Court as well

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

37. Learned counsel for the Revenue contended that the Assessing Officer under Section 153C of the Act has to record satisfaction regarding the material seized in the course of search of a person when it belonged to any other person. But detection of undisclosed income is not material. Relying on certain decisions of the Hon’ble Supreme Court as well

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

37. Learned counsel for the Revenue contended that the Assessing Officer under Section 153C of the Act has to record satisfaction regarding the material seized in the course of search of a person when it belonged to any other person. But detection of undisclosed income is not material. Relying on certain decisions of the Hon’ble Supreme Court as well

CORPORATION BANK vs. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX

Accordingly, the petitions are allowed

Bench: The Hon’Ble Mr. Justice Anand Byrareddy

37 years. …Petitioner (By Shri.K.P.Kumar, Sr. Counsel for Shri. Sandeep Huilgul & Shri. T.Suryanarayana, Advs.) And: 1. The Assistant Commissioner of Income - tax Circle 2(1), 3 C.R. Building, N.G.Road, Attavara, Mangalore – 575 001. 2. The Commissioner of Income - tax C.R. Building, N.G.Road, Attavara, Mangalore – 575 001. …Respondents (By Shri.K.V.Aravind, Adv.) --- This Writ Petition is filed under Article

CORPORATION BANK vs. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER

Accordingly, the petitions are allowed

Bench: The Hon’Ble Mr. Justice Anand Byrareddy

37 years. …Petitioner (By Shri.K.P.Kumar, Sr. Counsel for Shri. Sandeep Huilgul & Shri. T.Suryanarayana, Advs.) And: 1. The Assistant Commissioner of Income - tax Circle 2(1), 3 C.R. Building, N.G.Road, Attavara, Mangalore – 575 001. 2. The Commissioner of Income - tax C.R. Building, N.G.Road, Attavara, Mangalore – 575 001. …Respondents (By Shri.K.V.Aravind, Adv.) --- This Writ Petition is filed under Article

AMITH BETHALA (HUF) vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER

Bench: The Hon'Ble Mr. Justice Ram Mohan Reddy

37 YEARS ... PETITIONER (By Sri. HARISH V.S, & SRI. VINAY V. ADVS.,) AND INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD-7(1), 4TH FLOOR C WING, KENDRIYA SADAN 2ND BLOCK, KORAMANGALA BANGALORE – 560 034. ... RESPONDENT (By Sri. JEEVAN J NEERALGI, ADV.,) 2 THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH THE CONSEQUENTIAL NOTICE

THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX vs. M/S PRAKASH ELECTRIC COMPANY

Bench: S.SUJATHA,VINEET KOTHARI

147 of the Act for Assessment Year 2000-01 and tax liability on the capital gains of Rs.1,33,43,710/- to the extent of Rs.51,37,329/- and with interest under Sections 234A and 234B of the Act, a total demand of Rs.93,17,550/- was raised against the Assessee-firm. 7. The First Appellate Authority

KIDS CLINIC INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED

Bench: KRISHNA S DIXIT

147 of the Act for Assessment Year 2000-01 and tax liability on the capital gains of Rs.1,33,43,710/- to the extent of Rs.51,37,329/- and with interest under Sections 234A and 234B of the Act, a total demand of Rs.93,17,550/- was raised against the Assessee-firm. 7. The First Appellate Authority