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

Bench: K.SOMASHEKAR,UMESH M ADIGA

132 or proceeding under Section 132A against a person, who may be referred as 'the searched person'. Based on such search and seizure, assessment proceedings are initiated against the 67 'searched person' under Section 153A. At the time of initiation of such proceedings against the 'searched person' or during the assessment proceedings against him or even after

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

132 of the Act, notice under Section 153A(1) will have to be mandatorily issued to the person in respect of whom search was conducted requiring him to file returns for six assessment years immediately proceeding the previous year relevant to the assessment year in which the search takes place. (ii) Assessment and re-assessments pending on the date

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

132 of the Act, notice under Section 153A(1) will have to be mandatorily issued to the person in respect of whom search was conducted requiring him to file returns for six assessment years immediately proceeding the previous year relevant to the assessment year in which the search takes place. (ii) Assessment and re-assessments pending on the date

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

132 of the Act, notice under Section 153A(1) will have to be mandatorily issued to the person in respect of whom search was conducted requiring him to file returns for six assessment years immediately proceeding the previous year relevant to the assessment year in which the search takes place. (ii) Assessment and re-assessments pending on the date

MR. BINEESH KODIYERI vs. DIRECTORATE OF ENFORCEMENT

Bench: The Hon’Ble Mr. Justice Suraj Govindaraj Writ Petition No. 13261 Of 2020 (Gm-Res) Between: Mr. Bineesh Kodiyeri S/O Mr. Kodiyeri Balakrishnan Aged About 37 Years Kootamvilla Lane, Maruthankuzhi Thiruvananthapuram District Kerala State – 695013

68 keep such order and material for such period, as may be prescribed. (3) Every person arrested under sub-section (1) shall within twenty-four hours, be taken to a Judicial Magistrate or a Metropolitan Magistrate, as the case may be, having jurisdiction: Provided that the period of twenty-four hours shall exclude the time necessary for the journey

PRATHIBHA JEWELLERY HOUSE vs. THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS)

Bench: The Hon'Ble Dr.Justice Vineet Kothari

68 years No.1/1, Raja Ram Mohan Roy Road Richmond Circle Bangalore – 560 025. …Petitioner (By:Mr.A Shankar, Advocate) AND: 1. The Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) Office of the Commissioner of Income-Tax (Appeals)- 11, Central Revenue Building Queens Road, Bangalore – 560 001. 2. The Commissioner of Income-Tax Central Circle, C.R.Building, Queens Road Bangalore – 560 001. 3. The Deputy

THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, vs. M/S BAHUBALI NEMINATH MUTTIN,

The appeals are dismissed

Bench: ANAND BYRAREDDY,RAGHVENDRA S.CHAUHAN

68 of the I.T. Act at Rs.10,72,247/- was confirmed. The addition on account of gross profit on suppressed sales was deleted 5 and the addition under Section 41 (1) was confirmed. That order was challenged by both, the assessee as well as the Revenue before the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT). The assessee had raised an additional

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

PAWAN KUMAR MEHTA vs. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX

In the result, the substantial question of law Nos

Bench: ALOK ARADHE,HEMANT CHANDANGOUDAR

68 nor under Section 69 of the Act. It is also submitted that there is a presumption about 7 the books of accounts, which may be found in possession of control of any person during the course of search that such books of accounts belong to him, the contents of books of accounts are true and signature in parts

SRI. P S SESHADRI. vs. THE CHIEF COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX

In the result, this petition is allowed in part

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

68 of 1988) during the financial year 2006-07 as “long-term specified asset” for the purpose of the said section.” “Notification No.S.O.964(E), dated 29th June 2006 In exercise of the powers conferred by sub-clause (ii) of clause (b) of the Explanation to section 54EC of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (43 of 1961), the Central

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 under Section 148, such proceedings are required to be completed within one year from the end of the financial year in which the notice under Section 148 was served. Further, in cases of assessment

M/S. KARNATAKA FINANCIAL SERVICES vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX

In the result, the appeal is disposed of

Bench: ALOK ARADHE,R. NATARAJ

132 of the Act on 29.03.1996 and on 31.03.1997 i.e., from one year from the month in which last of the authorizations for search has been executed, the limitation for passing the block assessment period expired on 31.03.1997 and in the instant case the block assessment order has been passed on 31.05.1997 i.e., beyond the period of one year from

SHRI B.S. YEDDYURAPPA vs. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA

Bench: The Hon’Ble Mrs.Justice Rathnakala

68. We may, however, point out that since the report is from a constitutional functionary, it commands respect and cannot be brushed aside as such, but it is equally important to examine the comments what respective Ministries have to offer on the CAG’s Report. The Ministry can always point out, if there is any mistake

SHRI B.S. YEDDYURAPPA vs. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA

Bench: The Hon’Ble Mrs.Justice Rathnakala

68. We may, however, point out that since the report is from a constitutional functionary, it commands respect and cannot be brushed aside as such, but it is equally important to examine the comments what respective Ministries have to offer on the CAG’s Report. The Ministry can always point out, if there is any mistake

SHRI B.S. YEDDYURAPPA vs. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA

Bench: The Hon’Ble Mrs.Justice Rathnakala

68. We may, however, point out that since the report is from a constitutional functionary, it commands respect and cannot be brushed aside as such, but it is equally important to examine the comments what respective Ministries have to offer on the CAG’s Report. The Ministry can always point out, if there is any mistake

SHRI B S YEDDYURAPPA vs. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA

Bench: The Hon’Ble Mrs.Justice Rathnakala

68. We may, however, point out that since the report is from a constitutional functionary, it commands respect and cannot be brushed aside as such, but it is equally important to examine the comments what respective Ministries have to offer on the CAG’s Report. The Ministry can always point out, if there is any mistake

SHRI B.S. YEDDYURAPPA vs. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA

Bench: The Hon’Ble Mrs.Justice Rathnakala

68. We may, however, point out that since the report is from a constitutional functionary, it commands respect and cannot be brushed aside as such, but it is equally important to examine the comments what respective Ministries have to offer on the CAG’s Report. The Ministry can always point out, if there is any mistake

SHRI B.S. YEDDYURAPPA vs. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA

Bench: The Hon’Ble Mrs.Justice Rathnakala

68. We may, however, point out that since the report is from a constitutional functionary, it commands respect and cannot be brushed aside as such, but it is equally important to examine the comments what respective Ministries have to offer on the CAG’s Report. The Ministry can always point out, if there is any mistake