AZIM PREMJI TRUSTEE COMPANY PVT LTD vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX

In the result, I pass the following:-

Bench: The Hon'Ble Mr.Justice S.R.Krishna Kumar

U/S 148A(d) OF THE INCOME TAX ACT, 1961 FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2014-15 ANNEXURE-A AND ETC. THIS W.P. COMING ON FOR FURTHER HEARING, THIS DsAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:- ORDER In this petition, petitioner has sought for the following reliefs: “ (i) Quashing the impugned order dated: 28.07.2022 bearing ITBA/COM/F/17/2022- 23/1044214522(1) passed by Respondent No.1 under

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

Bench: The Hon’Ble Mr.Justice Aravind Kumar

II R 2 LARGE TAX PAYERS UNIT (LTU) JSS TOWERS, 100 FEET RING ROAD, BANASHANKARI III STAGE, BENGALURU-560085 ..RESPONDENTS (BY SRI.K.V.ARAVIND, PANEL ADVOCATE) THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 226 OF CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO: DECLARE THAT THE IMPUGNED PROCEEDINGS INITIATED BY THE R-1 UNDER SECTION 147 READ WITH SECTION 148 OF THE ACT ARE WITHOUT

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

The appeal is dismissed

Bench: S.SUJATHA,JAYANT PATEL

6 of time at which tax is to be levied u/s.45(2) of the Act, viz., sale of the stock-in-trade had not occurred during the previous year. In the reasons recorded by the AO, the AO makes a reference to the provisions of Sec.45(2) of the Act and claims that the said provisions are applicable because

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

The appeal is dismissed

Bench: N.KUMAR,RATHNAKALA

6 of time at which tax is to be levied u/s.45(2) of the Act, viz., sale of the stock-in-trade had not occurred during the previous year. In the reasons recorded by the AO, the AO makes a reference to the provisions of Sec.45(2) of the Act and claims that the said provisions are applicable because

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

6. He would further submit that the assessing Officer had not expressed any opinion on the controversy regarding inclusion of profits derived from rendering technical services into the eligible profits and as such, no opinion had been expressed during assessment proceedings and thereby change of opinion would not arise. On these grounds, he would seek for substantial questions

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

Appeal stands dismissed

Bench: S.SUJATHA,VINEET SARAN

u/s 201 and 201(1A). However, this is without prejudice to our earlier finding that the order for the asst. years 2002-03 and 2003-04 are barred by limitation.” 7 Challenging the said order of the Tribunal, this appeal has been filed by the Revenue. Though the appeal has been admitted on the questions of law, as mentioned

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

The appeal stands allowed

Bench: S.SUJATHA,HANCHATE SANJEEVKUMAR

6. Learned counsel appearing for the Revenue would argue that valid reasons have been recorded by the assessing officer for reopening the assessment proceedings under Section 147/148 of the Act; no flaw could be found in the said reasons; hence, the same cannot be held to be without jurisdiction. Learned counsel placing reliance on the judgment

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

Bench: K.SOMASHEKAR,UMESH M ADIGA

6) (2016) 380 ITR 612 (Delhi) - CIT vs. RRJ Securities Ltd., held as under: “14. The proviso to Section 153C(1) of the Act expressly indicates that reference to the date of initiation of search for the purposes of second proviso to Section 153A shall be construed as a reference to the date on which valuable assets or documents

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

Bench: S.SUJATHA

u/s 143(3) of the Act inter alia accepting the conclusions of the TPO. It appears after lapse of close to six years from the end of relevant Assessment Year, by the impugned notice dated 28.3.2013 issued under Section 148 of the Act respondent No.1 initiated re-assessment proceedings for the subject Assessment Year on the ground that the income

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

Bench: K.SOMASHEKAR,UMESH M ADIGA

II) CIT vs. IBC Knowledge Park(P) Ltd., held as under: “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

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

The appeal is dismissed

Bench: N.KUMAR,RATHNAKALA

U/s 147 11. Section 147 of the Act empowers the assessing officer to assess or reassess such income which is chargeable to tax as escaped assessment for any assessment year, if he has reason to believe that such income has escaped assessment. The proviso to Section 147 of the Act, however, provides that where an assessment under Section 143(3

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

ii) ALLOW THE APPEAL AND SET ASIDE THE FINDINGS TO THE EXTENT AGAINST THE APPELLANT IN THE ORDER PASSED BY THE ITAT, 'C' BENCH, BENGALURU IN ITA NO.1372/BANG/2014 RELATING TO ASSESSMENT YEAR 2007-08 VIDE ITS ORDER DATED 29.02.2016. THIS I.T.A. COMING ON FOR FINAL HEARING, THIS DAY, ALOK ARADHE J., DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: JUDGMENT This appeal under Section 260A

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

Bench: S.SUJATHA,VINEET KOTHARI

6. Treating such phased allotment of shares as non-compliance with the Proviso clause – (b) of Section 47(xiii) of the Act, the Assessing Authority imposed the Date of Order: 23-07-2018. ITA No.884/2007 c/w ITA No.60/2015 The Commissioner of Income Tax & Anr. Vs. M/s Prakash Electric Company 8/30 capital gains tax on the Partnership Firm vide Assessment Order

KIDS CLINIC INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED

Bench: KRISHNA S DIXIT

6. Treating such phased allotment of shares as non-compliance with the Proviso clause – (b) of Section 47(xiii) of the Act, the Assessing Authority imposed the Date of Order: 23-07-2018. ITA No.884/2007 c/w ITA No.60/2015 The Commissioner of Income Tax & Anr. Vs. M/s Prakash Electric Company 8/30 capital gains tax on the Partnership Firm vide Assessment Order

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

The appeal is dismissed

Bench: S.SUJATHA,VINEET KOTHARI

ii) set aside the common appellate order passed by the ITAT, ‘A’ bench, Bengaluru in ITA No.1006/Bang/2010 dated 31.10.2011, as sought for in this appeal, in the interest of justice and equity. This I.T.A. coming on for Final Hearing this day, Dr. Vineet Kothari J. delivered the following:- JUDGMENT Mr.E.I. Sanmathi, Adv. for Appellants- Revenue Mr.K.S. Ramabadran, Adv. for Respondent

P VIKRAM MAIYA vs. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX

Accordingly, writ petition is allowed

Bench: S.SUJATHA

6 - issued under Section 148 of the Act cannot be held to be unjustifiable. The original records are placed before the Court. 8. I have carefully considered the rival submissions of the learned counsel appearing for the parties and perused the material on record. 9. Section 147 of the Act reads thus: “Income escaping assessment. 147. If the Assessing Officer

P ARVIND MAIYA vs. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX

Accordingly, writ petition is allowed

Bench: S.SUJATHA

6 - issued under Section 148 of the Act cannot be held to be unjustifiable. The original records are placed before the Court. 8. I have carefully considered the rival submissions of the learned counsel appearing for the parties and perused the material on record. 9. Section 147 of the Act reads thus: “Income escaping assessment. 147. If the Assessing Officer

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