M/S T T K PRESTIGE LTD vs. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX

Bench: The Hon’Ble Mrs.Justice S.Sujatha

u/s. 114[e] of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 would be that the AO has looked into all the aspects of the matter made available in the return filed and the documents supplied along with the return. If an opinion is framed by the AO concluding the assessment order under section 143[3] of the Act, reopening the same without

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:

45,30,057/- which included interest payable u/s 244A amounting to Rs.267,54,62,251/-. (c) The files of the Assessee were transferred to another Assessing Officer i.e., second respondent-DCIT before whom Rectification Application dated 18.01.2018 was moved u/s 154; on a similar application being moved, the TPO made rectification of the adjustment u/s

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

The appeal is dismissed

Bench: S.SUJATHA,JAYANT PATEL

4 said aspects has observed from paragraph 12 to paragraph 26 as under: “12. It could be seen from the facts narrated as above that the proceeding u/s. 147 of the Act were sought to be initiated after a period of four years from the end of the relevant assessment year. It is also clear from the facts narrated

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

The appeal is dismissed

Bench: N.KUMAR,RATHNAKALA

4 said aspects has observed from paragraph 12 to paragraph 26 as under: “12. It could be seen from the facts narrated as above that the proceeding u/s. 147 of the Act were sought to be initiated after a period of four years from the end of the relevant assessment year. It is also clear from the facts narrated

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

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

Bench: K.SOMASHEKAR,UMESH M ADIGA

45 the transaction had been discharged by the petitioner in its books of account for the year ended 31.03.2009. In the very nature of things, the warrant of authorization of the search under Section 132 could not have been issued on the footing that there was undisclosed income in the case of the petitioner simply because action under Section

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

Bench: K.SOMASHEKAR,UMESH M ADIGA

45 stated therein should be followed. Therefore, nothing is to be gained from saying that the pre-conditions mentioned in clauses (a), (b) and (c) of sub-section (1) to Section 132 have not been satisfied vis-à-vis the petitioner so as to confer legality upon the seizure of the documents in question. In our opinion

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

MR SUNIL H ASHAR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER

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

45 YEARS RESIDING AT C/O A-1 CORPORATION NO.17, SRI BALAJI MARKET 199/200, T STREET BANGALORE 560 053 ... PETITIONER (By Sri. HARISH V.S, ADV.,) AND INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD 9(3), 3RD FLOR JEEVAN SAMPIGE, LIC BUILDING SAMPIGE ROAD MALLESHWARAM BANGALORE 560 003 ... RESPONDENT (By Sri. K.V ARAVIND, ADV.,) 3 THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES

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

45 - 46. 153C is relevant for the purposes of this case. Sub-section (1) of Section 153C begins with a non obstante clause and it states that notwithstanding anything contained in Sections 139, 147, 148, 149, 151 and 153, where the Assessing Officer is satisfied that any valuable assets, seized or requisitioned, belongs to, or any books of account

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

45 - 46. 153C is relevant for the purposes of this case. Sub-section (1) of Section 153C begins with a non obstante clause and it states that notwithstanding anything contained in Sections 139, 147, 148, 149, 151 and 153, where the Assessing Officer is satisfied that any valuable assets, seized or requisitioned, belongs to, or any books of account

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

45 - 46. 153C is relevant for the purposes of this case. Sub-section (1) of Section 153C begins with a non obstante clause and it states that notwithstanding anything contained in Sections 139, 147, 148, 149, 151 and 153, where the Assessing Officer is satisfied that any valuable assets, seized or requisitioned, belongs to, or any books of account

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