THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX vs. M/S WIPRO LTD

The appeals stand disposed of, accordingly

Bench: N.KUMAR,B.SREENIVASE GOWDA

139(5) of the Act defines the mandatory requirements and the time limit for rectification and the assessee has not filed any revised return for claim of tax credit with reference to income computed under Section 10A. - 28 - 17. Thereafter, the Assessing Authority proceeded to decide the claim on merits also. Insofar as assessment year 2001-02 is concerned

SHRI NARAYAN RAO HEBRI vs. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX

The appeal stands dismissed

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

68, when the conditions of the said section are not satisfied. 5.2. The Learned Commissioner (Appeals) is not justified in upholding the impugned addition when the Appellant established that he had sufficient source for deposit of cash to the bank account. 5.3. The Lower Authorities are not justified in rejecting the explanation of the Appellant of cash withdrawals being

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

139(5) (revised return of income); 147 (income escaping assessment) and 263 (revision of orders) of the Act. It was also held that it was not open for the assessee to seek deduction or claim expenditure, which had not - 64 - been claimed in the original assessment, which assessment already stood completed, only because a assessment under Section 153A

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

139(5) (revised return of income); 147 (income escaping assessment) and 263 (revision of orders) of the Act. It was also held that it was not open for the assessee to seek deduction or claim expenditure, which had not - 64 - been claimed in the original assessment, which assessment already stood completed, only because a assessment under Section 153A

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

139(5) (revised return of income); 147 (income escaping assessment) and 263 (revision of orders) of the Act. It was also held that it was not open for the assessee to seek deduction or claim expenditure, which had not - 64 - been claimed in the original assessment, which assessment already stood completed, only because a assessment under Section 153A

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

The appeals are allowed

Bench: N.KUMAR,H.S.KEMPANNA

139/-. I find that in the VDIS declaration the value of jewellery declared was only `20,70,68,765/-. Whereas while working out capital gains, the value of jewellery has been taken at `23,13,97,707/-. You are requested to explain the relevant provisions of the law of the board’s notification etc., which entitled you to take different

COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX vs. S.PARVATHI MADHAVA

The appeals are allowed

Bench: N.KUMAR,H.S.KEMPANNA

139/-. I find that in the VDIS declaration the value of jewellery declared was only `20,70,68,765/-. Whereas while working out capital gains, the value of jewellery has been taken at `23,13,97,707/-. You are requested to explain the relevant provisions of the law of the board’s notification etc., which entitled you to take different

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

The appeals are allowed

Bench: N.KUMAR,H.S.KEMPANNA

139/-. I find that in the VDIS declaration the value of jewellery declared was only `20,70,68,765/-. Whereas while working out capital gains, the value of jewellery has been taken at `23,13,97,707/-. You are requested to explain the relevant provisions of the law of the board’s notification etc., which entitled you to take different

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

The appeals are allowed

Bench: N.KUMAR,H.S.KEMPANNA

139/-. I find that in the VDIS declaration the value of jewellery declared was only `20,70,68,765/-. Whereas while working out capital gains, the value of jewellery has been taken at `23,13,97,707/-. You are requested to explain the relevant provisions of the law of the board’s notification etc., which entitled you to take different

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

The appeals are allowed

Bench: N.KUMAR,H.S.KEMPANNA

139/-. I find that in the VDIS declaration the value of jewellery declared was only `20,70,68,765/-. Whereas while working out capital gains, the value of jewellery has been taken at `23,13,97,707/-. You are requested to explain the relevant provisions of the law of the board’s notification etc., which entitled you to take different

THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX vs. MRS SHAKUNTALA DEVI

Appeal is hereby dismissed

Bench: ARAVIND KUMAR,JAYANT PATEL

68,032/-. In the return of income assessee claimed exemption under Section 54 of the Act, contending interalia that said amount had been 10 reinvested by her for purchase of another residential property namely, a flat at Mumbai itself for a total consideration of Rs.3,25,00,000/- as per Memorandum of Understanding entered on 08.09.2003. It is also

M/S ANS CONSTRUCTIONS LTD vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF COMMERCIAL

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

139[4] of the said act. A return filed is bound to be processed by the Income Tax authorities for which purpose they are meant unless there is an embargo placed. 23. In the case of State of Karnataka Vs. Centum Industries Private Limited case, reported in [2015] 77 VST 117 [Karn], The Division Bench of this Court interpreting Section

THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX GULBARGA vs. M/S MANJUNATHA COTTON AND GINNING FACTORY

The appeals are dismissed

Bench: ARAVIND KUMAR,N.KUMAR

139(1), he shall be punishable with rigorous imprisonment for a term which may extend to one year or with fine. It is clear that in the former case what is intended is a civil obligation while in the latter what is imposed is a criminal sentence. There can be no dispute that having regard to the provisions of section

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 is invalid since, no notice under Section

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

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

139 or in response to a notice issued under sub- section (1) of section 142 or section 148 or to disclose fully and truly all material facts necessary for his assessment for that assessment year. - 53 - Provided further that nothing contained in the first proviso shall apply in a case where any income in relation

SMT.K.SOWBAGHYA vs. UNION OF INDIA

Bench: ANAND BYRAREDDY

68 secreted or dealt with otherwise, thereby frustrating the attachment proceedings, power is afforded to take action. It is noticed that such attachment by recourse to the second proviso to Section 5 (1) is for a limited period, as is clear from a reading of sub-section (3) thereto, which contemplates that attachments affected under sub-section

SMT.K. SOWBAGHYA vs. UNION OF INDIA

Bench: ANAND BYRAREDDY

68 secreted or dealt with otherwise, thereby frustrating the attachment proceedings, power is afforded to take action. It is noticed that such attachment by recourse to the second proviso to Section 5 (1) is for a limited period, as is clear from a reading of sub-section (3) thereto, which contemplates that attachments affected under sub-section

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

Bench: K.SOMASHEKAR,UMESH M ADIGA

139, 147, 148, 149, 151 and 153, where the Assessing Officer is satisfied that any valuable assets, seized or requisitioned, belongs to, or any books of account or documents, seized or requisitioned, pertains or pertain to, or any information contained therein, relates to a person other than the person referred to in Section 153A, then, the books of account