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

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

Bench: K.SOMASHEKAR,UMESH M ADIGA

40 We answer the substantial question of law No. 2 by holding that the Tribunal was not correct in holding that the assessment under section 153C was valid despite there being no satisfaction recorded to the effect that the documents found during the search on June 17, 2008 were incriminating in nature and prima facie represented undisclosed income

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

Bench: K.SOMASHEKAR,UMESH M ADIGA

40 “12. The ld. sr. standing counsel for the income tax department also stated that the petitioner has already filed appeals before the CIT(Appeals) and has availed of the alternative remedy. 13. Sections 153A to 153D are placed in Chapter XIV of the Act, which is titled "procedure for assessment". Section 153A provides for the assessment in case

M/S MAHESH INVESTMENTS vs. THE ASST. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX

In the result, we do not find any merit in this

Bench: ALOK ARADHE,H.T. NARENDRA PRASAD

u/s 234 A, B & C can be levied as if such an order is a regular assessment which alone attracts such levy of interest. 2. Facts leading to filing of the appeal briefly stated are that assessee on 13.09.1994 filed its return 3 of income as a registered firm for the Assessment Year 1992-93. The Assessing Officer

MR SUNIL H ASHAR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER

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

40 YEARS ... PETITIONER (By Sri. HARISH V.S., ADV.,) AND INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD 1 (4) NO.59, HMT BHAVAN, 6TH FLOOR, BELLARY ROAD, BANGALORE - 560032. ... RESPONDENT (By Sri. JEEVAN J NEERALGI, ADV.,) THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 & 227 OF CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH THE IMPUGNED ASSESSMENT ORDER PASSED BY THE RESPONDENT U/S 143[3] R.W. SECTION

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

40. It was next contended before the Tribunal that the documents found did not lead to disclosure of undisclosed income of the assessee nor were they incriminating in nature. That the fundamental purpose of the search is to unearth undisclosed income. Therefore, unless the documents seized prima facie showed undisclosed income, Section 153C of the Act could not be invoked

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

40. It was next contended before the Tribunal that the documents found did not lead to disclosure of undisclosed income of the assessee nor were they incriminating in nature. That the fundamental purpose of the search is to unearth undisclosed income. Therefore, unless the documents seized prima facie showed undisclosed income, Section 153C of the Act could not be invoked

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

40. It was next contended before the Tribunal that the documents found did not lead to disclosure of undisclosed income of the assessee nor were they incriminating in nature. That the fundamental purpose of the search is to unearth undisclosed income. Therefore, unless the documents seized prima facie showed undisclosed income, Section 153C of the Act could not be invoked

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

M/S KOTHARI METALS vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER

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

40 YEARS. ... PETITIONER (By Sri. HARISH V.S., ADV.,) AND INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD 1(4), NO.59, HMT BHAVAN, 6TH FLOOR, BELLARY ROAD, BANGALORE-560 032. ... 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 IMPUGNED ASSESSMENT ORDER PASSED BY THE RESPONDENT U/S