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:

8 deals with time-limit in case of search based assessments. A second proviso is added to sub-section (5) of section 153 by the Finance Act, 2017. The said proviso states that where an order under section 250 or section 254 or section 260 or section 262 or section 263 or section 264 requires verification 24 of any issue

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

Bench: The Hon’Ble Mr.Justice Aravind Kumar

reassess the income of petitioner under section 147 of the Act. Said reason assigned by the Assessing officer on being furnished came to be replied by petitioner- assessee by challenging the same on the grounds indicated in reply dated 09.05.2014 Annexure-N. Assessing officer after considering the said reply rejected the contentions raised for the reasons indicated in the communication

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

The appeal is dismissed

Bench: S.SUJATHA,JAYANT PATEL

section 147 of the Act, the ld. counsel for the assessee contended as follows:- a) Initiation of reassessment proceedings is bad in law because proviso to Sec.147 will apply in the present case and therefore the initiation of reassessment proceedings can be only if there was failure on the part of the assessee to fully and truly disclose material facts

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

The appeal is dismissed

Bench: N.KUMAR,RATHNAKALA

section 147 of the Act, the ld. counsel for the assessee contended as follows:- a) Initiation of reassessment proceedings is bad in law because proviso to Sec.147 will apply in the present case and therefore the initiation of reassessment proceedings can be only if there was failure on the part of the assessee to fully and truly disclose material facts

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

8. Assessee is in the business of software development. For the assessment year 2003-04 return of income was filed on 31.10.2003 declaring income of ` 15,00,92,060/- after claiming deduction of ` 99,67,71,161/- under Section 10A of the Act. Assessment order came to be framed under Section 143(3) of the Act on 27.03.2006. The Assessing

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

The appeal stands allowed

Bench: S.SUJATHA,HANCHATE SANJEEVKUMAR

8. We have heard the learned counsel appearing for the parties and perused the original file placed before us. 9. As could be seen from the original file, the Audit Officer has made an enquiry dated 25.07.2006 regarding the short assessment of tax due to admitting deduction of Capital Gains under Section 80P of the Act. Pursuant to which

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

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

8 of the order relating to bogus transportation expenses claimed for the assessment years 2009- 10 and 2010-11, the assessing officer has brought on record that the appellant has claimed transportation expenses for the years in question. The same was indicated in the below tabular form. 15 A.Y Total Transportation Expenses claimed (Rs.) Transport Expenses Disallowed

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

The appeal is dismissed

Bench: N.KUMAR,RATHNAKALA

147 and 148 of the Act is bad in law as there was no failure on the part of the - 9 - assessee disclosing fully and truly all the material facts necessary for assessment.” 8. As the said question of law arises for consideration but not framed at the time of admission, the said request of the revenue was granted

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

Bench: K.SOMASHEKAR,UMESH M ADIGA

8 of the order relating to bogus transportation expenses claimed for the assessment years 2009- 10 and 2010-11, the assessing officer has brought on record that the appellant has claimed transportation expenses for the years in question. The same was indicated in a tabular form. 14 A.Y. Total Transportation Expenses claimed (Rs) Transport Expenses disallowed

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

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

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

MR SUNIL H ASHAR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER

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

U/S 143[3] R.W. SECTION 147 OF THE INCOME TAX ACT 1961, DATED 31.10.2014 FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2009-10 i.e. VIDE ANN-B, AND CONSEQUENTIAL NOTICE OF DEMAND ISSUED BY THE RESPONDENT, DATED 7 31.10.2014 FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2009-10 i.e. ANN-C & ETC., THESE WRIT PETITIONS COMING ON FOR PRLY. HEARING IN ‘B’ GROUP THIS

THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-III vs. SMT.KAMAKSHI DEVI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is

Bench: S.SUJATHA,VINEET KOTHARI

u/s. 147 is bad in law without appreciating the fact that the department has not accepted the relied upon decision and the same has also been challenged before this Hon'ble High Court of Karnataka in ITA NO.244/2013? 2. Facts leading to filing of this appeal briefly stated are that the assessee is engaged in the business of conducting chits

P VIKRAM MAIYA vs. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX

Accordingly, writ petition is allowed

Bench: S.SUJATHA

reassess the income in respect of any issue, which has escaped assessment, and such issue comes to his notice subsequently in the course of the proceedings under this section, notwithstanding that the reasons for such issue have not been included in the reasons recorded under sub-section [2] of section 148. Explanation 4. – For the removal of doubts

P ARVIND MAIYA vs. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX

Accordingly, writ petition is allowed

Bench: S.SUJATHA

reassess the income in respect of any issue, which has escaped assessment, and such issue comes to his notice subsequently in the course of the proceedings under this section, notwithstanding that the reasons for such issue have not been included in the reasons recorded under sub-section [2] of section 148. Explanation 4. – For the removal of doubts