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

The appeal is dismissed

Bench: N.KUMAR,RATHNAKALA

reassess such income and also any other income chargeable to tax which has escaped assessment and which comes to his notice subsequently in the course of the proceedings under this section, or recompute the loss or the depreciation allowance or any other allowance, as the case may be, for the assessment year concerned (hereafter in this section and in sections

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

The appeal is dismissed

Bench: S.SUJATHA,VINEET KOTHARI

reassessing the income by invoking the provisions of section 147 of the Act. 17. In the present case, another objection taken by the AO in the reasons recorded for reopening the assessment is that the assessee had not set off business loss against the capital Date of Judgment 31-07-2018 I.T.A.No.58/2012 Commissioner of Income

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, for completing assessment u/s 153, etc; limitation is 37 provided for acts of assessee as well ie., due date for filing of returns u/ss 139(1)/(4)/(5); in Parashuram Pottery Works Col Ltd. v. ITO [1977] 106 ITR 1 at p.10, it is stated: “At the same time, we have to bear in mind that the policy

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

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

The appeal stands allowed

Bench: B.MANOHAR,VINEET SARAN

SET ASIDE THE ORDER PASSED BY THE ITAT BANGALORE IN ITA NO.1357/BNG/2008 DATED 31.07.2009 AND CONFIRM THE ORDER DATED 29.8.2008 PASSED IN ITA NO.161/MYS/CIT(A)- V/07-08 BY THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS), MYSORE. ® 2 THIS ITA COMING ON FOR HEARING THIS DAY, VINEET SARAN J. DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: JUDGMENT This is an appeal filed by the assessee

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

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

set of facts claimed as licence fee paid for the use of the logo ‘ttk’ is subsisting for many years. As such, it is difficult to comprehend - 51 - the mind of the AO to invoke section 147 proceedings, only with respect to Assessment Year 2009-10. Further, it is also significant to note that the dispute relating

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

The appeal is dismissed

Bench: N.KUMAR,RATHNAKALA

loss of Rs.6,83,400/- on 28.12.1992. After considering assessment under Section 143(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’), an order came to be passed on 11.11.1994 treating the assesee as the unregistered firm and accepting the return filed. The assessment - 3 - was reopened by issuing notice under Section

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

The appeal stands allowed

Bench: S.SUJATHA,HANCHATE SANJEEVKUMAR

SET ASIDE THE FINDINGS TO THE EXTENT AGAINST THE APPELLANT IN THE ORDER PASSED BY THE ITAT, BENGALURU BENCH, SMC, BENGALURU IN ITA NO.1364/BANG/2016 DATED 23.09.2016 FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2004-2005 (ANNEXURE-A). THIS APPEAL COMING ON FOR HEARING, THIS DAY, S. SUJATHA, J., DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: J U D G M E N T This appeal is filed

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

Bench: The Hon’Ble Mr.Justice Aravind Kumar

loss of `39,56,399/-. Under section 143(3) of the Act assessment was taken up and after the details called for by the Assessing officer and same being produced a draft assessment order came to be passed on 28.03.2013 proposing to make several additions to the income of the petitioner. Petitioner filed its objections to draft assessment order before

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

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

THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX vs. M/S.MILLENNIA DEVELOPERS (P) LTD

Bench: The Hon'Ble Mr. Justice Ravi Malimath

u/s. 171 of the Act), where this amount is settled among the HUF members, 5 when the assessee company is a separate entity from that of the share holders? ii) Whether the Appellate Authorities were correct in accepting a family arrangement and partition among the share holders and their relatives vis a vie the assessee company and four accounting entries

THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX vs. M/S.MILLENNIA DEVELOPERS (P) LTD

Bench: The Hon'Ble Mr. Justice Ravi Malimath

u/s. 171 of the Act), where this amount is settled among the HUF members, 5 when the assessee company is a separate entity from that of the share holders? ii) Whether the Appellate Authorities were correct in accepting a family arrangement and partition among the share holders and their relatives vis a vie the assessee company and four accounting entries

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

Bench: K.SOMASHEKAR,UMESH M ADIGA

147, section 148, section 149, section 151 and section 153, where the Assessing Officer is satisfied that,— (a) any money, bullion, jewellery or other valuable article or thing, seized or requisitioned, belongs to; or (b) any books of account or documents, seized or requisitioned, pertains or pertain to, or any information contained therein, relates to, a person other than

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

Bench: K.SOMASHEKAR,UMESH M ADIGA

147, section 148, section 149, section 151 and section 153, where the Assessing Officer is satisfied that,— (a) any money, bullion, jewellery or other valuable article or thing, seized or requisitioned, belongs to; or (b) any books of account or documents, seized or requisitioned, pertains or pertain to, or any information contained therein, relates to, 73 a person other than

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 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 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