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

143 has expired, or (c) assessment or reassessment, if any, has been made, before the date of receiving the books of account or documents or valuable assets seized or requisitioned by the Assessing Officer having jurisdiction over such other person, such Assessing Officer shall issue notice and assess or reassess total income of such other - 47 - person of such assessment

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

143 has expired, or (c) assessment or reassessment, if any, has been made, before the date of receiving the books of account or documents or valuable assets seized or requisitioned by the Assessing Officer having jurisdiction over such other person, such Assessing Officer shall issue notice and assess or reassess total income of such other - 47 - person of such assessment

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

143 has expired, or (c) assessment or reassessment, if any, has been made, before the date of receiving the books of account or documents or valuable assets seized or requisitioned by the Assessing Officer having jurisdiction over such other person, such Assessing Officer shall issue notice and assess or reassess total income of such other - 47 - person of such assessment

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

Bench: K.SOMASHEKAR,UMESH M ADIGA

143(2) for A.Y. 2011-12. The assessment proceedings were concluded vide orders dated 31.03.2013 for A.Y. 61 2005-06 to 2010-11 under Section 153C of the Act and the assessment order for A.Y. 2011-12 was passed under Section 144 read with Section 153D of the Act. The income of the respondent – assessee was assessed

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

Bench: K.SOMASHEKAR,UMESH M ADIGA

143(2) for A.Y. 2011-12. The assessment proceedings were concluded vide orders dated 31.03.2013 for A.Y. 2005-06 to 2010-11 under Section 153C of the Act and the assessment order for A.Y. 2011- 12 was passed under Section 144 read with Section 153D of the Act. The income of the respondent – assessee was assessed

THE PR. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX vs. M/S. TE CONNECTIVITY INDIA PVT. LTD.,

Accordingly dispose of the appeal as allowed

Bench: ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE,S RACHAIAH

143(3) read with Section 144C(13) of the Act on 25.10.2019. Subsequently, the PCIT issued a notice under Section 263 of the Act seeking to revise the final assessment order dated 25.10.2019 and rejecting the objections of the respondent, passed the revisionary order dated 30.03.2022 (Annexure E) holding that the assessment - 10 - ITA No.53 of 2024 order

THE PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER vs. M/S OBULAPURAM MINING

Bench: K.SOMASHEKAR,UMESH M ADIGA

68,440/- (b) In respect of Helicopter Hiring Charges 72,23,641/- Total adjustments Rs.112,20,92,081/- 7. It is further stated that the draft assessment order came to be passed under section 144C read with Section 143

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

The appeals are dismissed

Bench: ARAVIND KUMAR,N.KUMAR

143 or fails to comply with a direction issued under sub-section (2A) of section 142; or (c) Has concealed the particulars of his income or furnished inaccurate particulars of such income, he may direct that such person shall pay by way of penalty, - (i) Omitted 38 (ii) In the cases referred to in clause (b), in addition

THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX vs. SRI N LEELA KUMAR

Bench: N.KUMAR,RATHNAKALA

143.. (2) In computing the undisclosed income of the block period, the provisions of sections 68, 69, 69A, 69B and 69C shall

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

The appeal stands dismissed

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

143(3) is bad as the Learned Assessing Officer having proposed to complete assessment ex-parte, ought to have passed the said order only under section 144. - 11 - ITA No. 166 of 2025 3. As regards additional income of Rs.1,14,20,100/-. 3.1 The Lower Authorities are not justified in assessing the additional income of Rs.1

THE PRL.COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX vs. SUNITA BAI

Bench: SREENIVAS HARISH KUMAR,RAGHVENDRA S. CHAUHAN

143(2) was also issued to the assessee. A notice under Section 142(1) accompanied with a questionnaire was also issued to the assessee on 10.08.2009. In response to the said notice, the assessee appeared before the Assessing Officer. The assessee was asked to explain the receipt of Rs.45,00,000/- by way of gift from Hasim Mod Trading

SHRI SURESH KUMAR T JAIN vs. THE INCOME-TAX OFFICER

The appeal is dismissed

Bench: The Hon'Ble Mr. Justice Ravi Malimath

143(1) of the Income Tax Act, 1961, (for short, ‘the Act’). On 12-3-2007, a survey under Section 133-A of the Act was conducted in the business premises. During the course of survey, the assessee was asked to produce the books of accounts for the assessment years

SRI G LALANATHA REDDY vs. THE ASST COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX

Appeals stand dismissed

Bench: D K SINGH,VENKATESH NAIK T

68 OF 2022 INCOME TAX APPEAL NO. 71 OF 2022 INCOME TAX APPEAL NO. 86 OF 2022 INCOME TAX APPEAL NO. 121 OF 2022 INCOME TAX APPEAL NO. 177 OF 2022 INCOME TAX APPEAL NO. 292 OF 2022 AND INCOME TAX APPEAL NO. 305 OF 2022 IN ITA No. 178/2022: BETWEEN: 1. SRI G LALANATHA REDDY AGED 45 YEARS

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

Section 143(3) on 31.12.2008 determining a total income of Rs.31,04,68,388/-. In this case a survey

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

The appeals are dismissed

Bench: ANAND BYRAREDDY,RAGHVENDRA S.CHAUHAN

143 (3) of the I.T. Act in making the following additions: (i) Unexplained income on account of purchases under Section 69B of the I.T. Act at Rs.23,59,133/- (ii) Difference in stock being undisclosed income of Rs.1,32,73,013/- (iii) Undisclosed credits under Section 68

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

143 of the Act determining tax liability of Rs.36,94,298/- including interest under Section 234A, 234B and 234C, which was rectified under Section 154 of the Act by giving credit of Rs.29,09,800/- being the tax amount paid, to reduce the tax liability to Rs.6,98,430/- being the interest portion as follows: Interest levied

THE PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CIT(A) vs. SHRI.S.S. BAKKESH

In the result, both the appeals filed by the Revenue are

Bench: D K SINGH,VENKATESH NAIK T

143(3) of the Act, at a total assessed income of Rs.15,40,92,700/- for the Assessment Year 2007-08 in ITA No.37/2020 and Rs.17,98,98,400/- for the Assessment Year 2008-09 in ITA No.72/2020. While doing so, the Assessing Officer disallowed the claim for deduction under Section 80 JJA in respect of bio-fuel pellets

M/S TEJAS NETWORKS LIMITED vs. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX

In the result, I proceed to pass the following:

Bench: The Hon’Ble Mr.Justice Aravind Kumar

143(3) r/w Section 144C(13) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (for short ‘Act’) dated 31.01.2013 - Annexure-R and consequential demand notice dated 31.01.2014 at Annexure-R1 issued by first respondent. By consent of learned Advocates appearing for parties matter is taken up for final hearing. 3 FACTUAL MATRIX: 2. Petitioner is an assessee under