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

Bench: K.SOMASHEKAR,UMESH M ADIGA

148 and subsequently, the assessment proceedings were concluded by passing an order of reassessment under Section 147 read with Section 144 by bringing to tax all the income which formed part of 6 total income under the original assessment order passed. However, it was noticed that though the assessment proceedings was initiated by issue of notice under Section

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

Bench: K.SOMASHEKAR,UMESH M ADIGA

148 and subsequently, the assessment proceedings were concluded by passing an order of reassessment under Section 147 read with Section 144 by bringing to tax all the income which formed part of 5 total income under the original assessment order passed. However, it was noticed that though the assessment proceedings was initiated by issue of notice under 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

148 of the Act? (ii) Whether on the facts and circumstances of the case the tribunal was right in law in annulling the reassessment made under Section 147 especially when the provisions of Section 292B of the Act introduced w.e.f. 01.10.1975, would govern that such reassessment and makes it valid in law when the assessment made

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

The appeal is dismissed

Bench: The Hon'Ble Mr. Justice Ravi Malimath

148 of the Act was served on the assessee. In response to the notice, the assessee filed a letter dated 30-8-2007, wherein he has stated that he has already filed his return of income on 31-3-2006, which is to be considered as a return filed in response to the notice. The assessee was heard. 2. During

COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX vs. S.PARVATHI MADHAVA

The appeals are allowed

Bench: N.KUMAR,H.S.KEMPANNA

148 of the Act merged with the proceedings under Section 153(A) of the Act. 6. In the objections filed to the notice issued under Section 153(A) of the Act, it was contended that the said search did not reveal the existence of any undisclosed income or assets representing any undisclosed income. The said search is illegal

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

The appeals are allowed

Bench: N.KUMAR,H.S.KEMPANNA

148 of the Act merged with the proceedings under Section 153(A) of the Act. 6. In the objections filed to the notice issued under Section 153(A) of the Act, it was contended that the said search did not reveal the existence of any undisclosed income or assets representing any undisclosed income. The said search is illegal

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

The appeals are allowed

Bench: N.KUMAR,H.S.KEMPANNA

148 of the Act merged with the proceedings under Section 153(A) of the Act. 6. In the objections filed to the notice issued under Section 153(A) of the Act, it was contended that the said search did not reveal the existence of any undisclosed income or assets representing any undisclosed income. The said search is illegal

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

The appeals are allowed

Bench: N.KUMAR,H.S.KEMPANNA

148 of the Act merged with the proceedings under Section 153(A) of the Act. 6. In the objections filed to the notice issued under Section 153(A) of the Act, it was contended that the said search did not reveal the existence of any undisclosed income or assets representing any undisclosed income. The said search is illegal

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

The appeals are allowed

Bench: N.KUMAR,H.S.KEMPANNA

148 of the Act merged with the proceedings under Section 153(A) of the Act. 6. In the objections filed to the notice issued under Section 153(A) of the Act, it was contended that the said search did not reveal the existence of any undisclosed income or assets representing any undisclosed income. The said search is illegal

WIPRO EQUITY REWARD TRUST vs. PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX -1

In the result, the writ petition is disposed of

Bench: ALOK ARADHE,S VISHWAJITH SHETTY

68 YEARS (SENIOR CITIZEN’S BENEFIT NOT CLAIMED) SON OF PURUSHOTTAM VENKATRAO SANTURKAR ADDRESS AT A 1002 ADARSH RHYTHM, NO.71 3RD MAIN, PANDURANGANAGAR BENGALURU 560076. 25. MR. BALA GIRIDHAR MANCHI AGED 65 YEARS (SENIOR CITIZEN’S BENEFIT NOT CLAIMED) SON OF KUMARA SWAMY MANCHI ADDRESS AT NO.104, BLOCK 2 GREEN IS THE COLOUR APARTMENTS 6 3RD MAIN, BILEKAHALLI DOLLAR BENGALURU

THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX vs. SRI N LEELA KUMAR

Bench: N.KUMAR,RATHNAKALA

68, 69, 69A, 69B and 69C shall, so far as may be, - 12 - apply and references to "financial year" in those sections shall be construed as references to the relevant previous year falling in the block period including the previous year ending with the date of search or of the requisition. (3) The burden of proving to the satisfaction

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

M/S SBMS CONCRETE vs. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX

In the result, I pass the following:

Bench: The Hon'Ble Mr.Justice S.R.Krishna Kumar

68, BUDIGERE MAIN ROAD HANCHARAHALLI VILLAGE MANDUR BRADARAHLLI VILLAGE BENGALURU 560 049. …PETITIONER (BY SRI. ANNAMALAI.S., ADVOCATE) AND: THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CENTRAL CIRCLE 1(2), C R BUILDING III FLOOR, QUEENS ROAD BENGALURU 560 001. …RESPONDENT (BY SRI. K.V. ARAVIND., ADVOCATE) THIS W.P. IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING

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

148 of the Act where recording of reasons in writing are a sine qua non. Under Section 158BD, the existence of cogent and demonstrative material is germane to the Assessing Officers’ satisfaction in concluding that the seized documents belong to a person other than the searched person is necessary for initiation of action under Section 158BD. The bare

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

148 of the Act where recording of reasons in writing are a sine qua non. Under Section 158BD, the existence of cogent and demonstrative material is germane to the Assessing Officers’ satisfaction in concluding that the seized documents belong to a person other than the searched person is necessary for initiation of action under Section 158BD. The bare

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

148 of the Act where recording of reasons in writing are a sine qua non. Under Section 158BD, the existence of cogent and demonstrative material is germane to the Assessing Officers’ satisfaction in concluding that the seized documents belong to a person other than the searched person is necessary for initiation of action under Section 158BD. The bare

THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX vs. MRS SHAKUNTALA DEVI

Appeal is hereby dismissed

Bench: ARAVIND KUMAR,JAYANT PATEL

Section 148. Accordingly, assessment proceedings came to be framed. 3. Assessing officer has noticed that assessee had sold a flat at Mumbai on 04.02.2003 for a total consideration of `1,71,00,000/- and had worked out long-term capital gain of `1,44,68

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

148 of the IT Act. 3.2 Upon conclusion of the reassessment proceedings, the Assessing Officer held that the assessee had handed over possession of the land to the builder for the purpose of construction of flats. It was further held that the assessee had executed a registered General Power of Attorney (GPA) in favour of the builder on the date