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

68 - against the assessee and seized goods having been released in favour of the assessee, notice could be issued under Section 153C of the Act to file returns for six years. The stand of the Revenue therein was that the Assessing Officer could still proceed under Section 153A of the Act in order to find out the source of income

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

68 - against the assessee and seized goods having been released in favour of the assessee, notice could be issued under Section 153C of the Act to file returns for six years. The stand of the Revenue therein was that the Assessing Officer could still proceed under Section 153A of the Act in order to find out the source of income

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

68 - against the assessee and seized goods having been released in favour of the assessee, notice could be issued under Section 153C of the Act to file returns for six years. The stand of the Revenue therein was that the Assessing Officer could still proceed under Section 153A of the Act in order to find out the source of income

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

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

reopening of assessment was due to the objections of the audit party and no independent application of mind was there by the AO further, the assessment order under Section 143[3] of the Act was in consonance with the view taken in the preceding as well as succeeding year. No perversity has been found by this Court in the said

THE PR COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX vs. M/S ATRIA WIND (KADAMBUR) PVT LTD

Bench: CHIEF JUSTICE,C M JOSHI

68,251/- made on account of capital gains. During the previous year relevant to AY 2017-18, a partnership firm namely M/s. Perpetual Investments, was converted into a private company [the assessee]. The said conversion entailed the transfer of the entire assets and liabilities from the partnership firm to the assessee company. Whereas the assessee claimed that the conversion

SHRI S L BASAVARAJ (HUF) vs. THE ASST COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX

Appeals stand allowed

Bench: The Tribunal. By A Common Order Dated 30.1.2009, Tribunal Has Allowed The Appeals Of The Revenue. Aggrieved

Section 148 of the Act. In our view, in the aforesaid facts, the reopening of assessment for the assessment years 1999-2000 and 2000-2001 in the case of assessee, cannot be justified in law. Question No.1 is thus answered in favour of the assessee and against the Revenue. 16 Question No.2 17. The second question relates to the Tribunal

THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX vs. KENNAMETAL INC,USA

Bench: KRISHNA S DIXIT,RAMACHANDRA D. HUDDAR

68 of 2024 in cases where assessment, reassessment, or recomputation is to be made under Section 147 of the Act, pursuant to reopening

THE PR. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX vs. M/S FIBRES AND FABRICS INTERNATIONAL PVT. LTD.,

In the result, we do not find any merit in this

Bench: ALOK ARADHE,HEMANT CHANDANGOUDAR

reopen provided there is a tangible material to come to the conclusion that there is escapement of income from assessment. The Apex Court held that mere change of opinion on consideration of the same material is no ground to invoke Section 147 of the said Act. 19. Therefore, in the light of law laid down in the case

COMMISSIONER OF INCOME vs. M/S C RAMAIAH REDDY

In the result, we do not find any merit in the appeal

Bench: ALOK ARADHE,M.NAGAPRASANNA

68,180/- as long term capital gains and a sum of Rs.61,32,800/- as short term capital gains by invoking Section 45(2) of the Act. 3. The assessee preferred an appeal before the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) on the ground that reopening of assessment

THE PRL.COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX vs. SUNITA BAI

Bench: SREENIVAS HARISH KUMAR,RAGHVENDRA S. CHAUHAN

68 of the Act. Hence, the said amount was treated as undisclosed amount of the assessee by order dated 21.12.2009. 3. Since the assessee was aggrieved by the order dated 21.12.2009, she filed an appeal before the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) (‘the CIT’, for short). However, by order dated 20.08.2013, the learned CIT dismissed the said appeal. Therefore

SHRI N G CHANDRA REDDY (HUF) vs. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF

The appeal is disposed of in the above terms

Bench: S.G.PANDIT,K. V. ARAVIND

reopening of the assessment are concerned, learned Senior Counsel submits that the said questions are not pressed in the present appeal. - 7 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:7442-DB ITA No. 637 of 2016 5. Per contra, Sri E. I. Samathi, learned Senior Standing Counsel appearing for the respondent–Revenue, submits that the JDA was executed contemporaneously with the General

THE PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER vs. M/S OBULAPURAM MINING

Bench: K.SOMASHEKAR,UMESH M ADIGA

reopen the assessment. In our opinion, an error discovered on a reconsideration of the same material (and no more) does not give him that power." 28.The second limb of argument advanced by the learned counsel for the respondent/assessee is that on 14.10.2010 the assessee filed return of income under Section 139 of the I.T. Act for the assessment year

M/S MYSORE POLYMERS & RUBBER PRODUCTS LTD vs. THE COMMISSIONER OF COMMERCIAL TAXES

In the result, writ appeal No

Bench: D.V.SHYLENDRA KUMAR,B.S.INDRAKALA

68. Submission is that a fiction created for the purpose of section 5[3][a] of the Act cannot be accepted and applied for the charge created under section 6-B of the Act. 69. This argument is an acceptable argument as we find that section 6-B of the Act is governed by the provisos appended to this section

COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX vs. S.MADHAVA (HUF)

The appeals are allowed

Bench: N.KUMAR,H.S.KEMPANNA

Section 148 and/or 153A was ordered and, therefore, the contention that reopening of the assessment is not valid has no basis. 16. Insofar as the second ground of violation of principles of natural justice is concerned, though the Tribunal was of the view that there is some substance in - 27 - the said contention, as opportunity was given by the Appellate

COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX vs. S.MADHAVA (HUF)

The appeals are allowed

Bench: N.KUMAR,H.S.KEMPANNA

Section 148 and/or 153A was ordered and, therefore, the contention that reopening of the assessment is not valid has no basis. 16. Insofar as the second ground of violation of principles of natural justice is concerned, though the Tribunal was of the view that there is some substance in - 27 - the said contention, as opportunity was given by the Appellate

COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX vs. S.MADHAVA, M/S BELLARY STEEL ROLING MILLS,

The appeals are allowed

Bench: N.KUMAR,H.S.KEMPANNA

Section 148 and/or 153A was ordered and, therefore, the contention that reopening of the assessment is not valid has no basis. 16. Insofar as the second ground of violation of principles of natural justice is concerned, though the Tribunal was of the view that there is some substance in - 27 - the said contention, as opportunity was given by the Appellate

COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX vs. S.MADHAVA, M/S BELLARY STEEL ROLING MILLS,

The appeals are allowed

Bench: N.KUMAR,H.S.KEMPANNA

Section 148 and/or 153A was ordered and, therefore, the contention that reopening of the assessment is not valid has no basis. 16. Insofar as the second ground of violation of principles of natural justice is concerned, though the Tribunal was of the view that there is some substance in - 27 - the said contention, as opportunity was given by the Appellate

COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX vs. S.PARVATHI MADHAVA

The appeals are allowed

Bench: N.KUMAR,H.S.KEMPANNA

Section 148 and/or 153A was ordered and, therefore, the contention that reopening of the assessment is not valid has no basis. 16. Insofar as the second ground of violation of principles of natural justice is concerned, though the Tribunal was of the view that there is some substance in - 27 - the said contention, as opportunity was given by the Appellate