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

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

2. This is the second round of litigation, as much as, the challenge made to the Notice dated 11.02.2014 [Annexure-G]. In the first round of litigation, Petitioner-Assessee had challenged the Notice as well as the Order dated 6.1.2015 issued by the Respondent, rejecting the objections of the petitioner to the notice under section 148 of the Act. This

DELL INDIA PVT LTD vs. THE JOINT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX

Bench: The Hon’Ble Mr.Justice Aravind Kumar

5 treated as the return of income filed in response to notice issued under section 148 of the Act. At the same time petitioner also called upon the first respondent to furnish reasons for initiating reassessment proceedings. Pursuant to the same, Assessing officer namely first respondent intimated the petitioner by communication dated 25.04.2014 Annexure- M, reasons for reopening indicating thereunder

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 had already been made. Therefore, proviso to section 147 of the Act will apply. 13. It can also be seen from the reasons recorded by the AO for initiating proceedings u/s.147 of the Act, that the narration in para 1 to 9 of the reasons recorded are facts which were well within the knowledge

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 had already been made. Therefore, proviso to section 147 of the Act will apply. 13. It can also be seen from the reasons recorded by the AO for initiating proceedings u/s.147 of the Act, that the narration in para 1 to 9 of the reasons recorded are facts which were well within the knowledge

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

The appeal stands allowed

Bench: S.SUJATHA,HANCHATE SANJEEVKUMAR

5. Learned counsel appearing for the appellant placing reliance on, (1) ALA Firm v. CIT, reported in (1991) 189 ITR 285; (2) Commissioner of Income-tax, Delhi v. Kelvinator of India Ltd., reported in (2010) 320 ITR 561; and (3) TTK Prestige Ltd., v. Deputy Commissioner of Income-tax, Bengaluru, (2018) 97 taxmann.com 112 - 6 - submitted that reopening

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

5. It is the contention of Sri K.V.Aravind, learned Advocate for the revenue that Tribunal erred in holding that assessing Officer sought to initiate the re-assessment proceedings by mere change of opinion, without considering the fact that the 7 expenditure related to onsite development of computer software and same had not been examined in the original assessment

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

Bench: K.SOMASHEKAR,UMESH M ADIGA

5) ITA NO.322 / 2018 - PCIT VS. Delhi International Airport Pvt. Ltd., held that; “29. Section 153C provides that where an Assessing Officer is satisfied that any money, bullion, jewellery or other valuable article or thing or books of account documents seized or requisitioned belong or belongs to a person other than the person referred to in Section 153A, then

NOVO NORDISK INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED vs. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE 12 (2

Bench: S.SUJATHA

2) was issued on 23.10.2007, to which the petitioner filed requisite reply. Reference was also made with the prior approval of respondent No.2 to the Transfer Pricing Officer under Section 92CA(1) of the Act for determination of arm’s length price in respect of international transactions - 4 - reported by the petitioner during the subject Assessment year. TPO passed

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

Bench: K.SOMASHEKAR,UMESH M ADIGA

5 total income under the original assessment order passed. However, it was noticed that though the assessment proceedings was initiated by issue of notice under Section 143(2), The Tribunal vide said order also knocked down the assessment proceedings completed under Section 144 read with Section 153D on similar ground that no satisfaction note was recorded by the assessing officer

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

THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX vs. M/S SHASTHA PHARMA LABORATORIES

The appeal is dismissed

Bench: N.KUMAR,RATHNAKALA

5. Aggrieved by the said order of the assessing authority, the assessee preferred an appeal to the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals). The appellate authority confirmed the assessment made but for - 7 - statistical purpose the appeal was treated as dismissed, since despite the acceptance of one of the pleadings raised, the end result is the confirmation of the assessment order

SHRI. SUMIR J. HINDUJA vs. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX

In the result, appeal is disposed of

Bench: ALOK ARADHE,HEMANT CHANDANGOUDAR

Section 147 are satisfied? (5) Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, there was any reliable and cogent material in the recording u/s 148(2) of the Assessing Officer to initiate reassessment

SRI C M MAHADEVA S/O SRI MANCHE GOWDA vs. THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX

The appeal stands allowed

Bench: B.MANOHAR,VINEET SARAN

Reassessment made u/s 147 of the Act 1961 on 10.12.2007 for the Asst. year 2004-2005 was valid when the original Return of income involuntarily filed on 21.3.2007 remained undisposed of, when the proceedings u/s 147 were initiated on 27.9.2006? 2) Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Tribunal was right

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

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

5) (revised return of income); 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

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

5) (revised return of income); 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

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

5) (revised return of income); 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

COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX TDS vs. M/S BHARAT HOTELS LIMITED

Appeal stands dismissed

Bench: S.SUJATHA,VINEET SARAN

5 under sub-section (1), and the amount of interest payable under sub-section (1A) of Section 201 of the Act was quantified. The appeal filed by the assessee was allowed by the Appellate Commissioner on 30.5.2008, holding that the order passed by the Assessing Officer was time barred. However, by subsequent order dated 30.9.2008 passed under Section