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

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

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

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

PAWAN KUMAR MEHTA vs. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX

In the result, the substantial question of law Nos

Bench: ALOK ARADHE,HEMANT CHANDANGOUDAR

153A of the Act on 26.12.2011 and made an addition of Rs.55,54,521/-, same being peak cash deficit in the cash book. 3. The assessee thereupon filed an appeal before the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) who by an order dated 25.09.2013 dismissed the appeal and enhanced the addition to Rs.56,32,132/-. The assessee thereupon filed an appeal

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

Bench: CHIEF JUSTICE,C M JOSHI

Section 153A of the Act was issued. The Assessing Officer [AO] determined the total income of the assessee at ₹1,89,11,81,757/-. The said determination was based on an addition of a sum of ₹1,91,95,68

THE PRL.COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX vs. SUNITA BAI

Bench: SREENIVAS HARISH KUMAR,RAGHVENDRA S. CHAUHAN

153A of the Act. Moreover, a notice under Section 153C of the Act was issued to the assessee on 31.10. 2008. In response to the said notice, the assessee filed a return of income tax on 19.12.2008 declaring her income as Rs.17,336/-. On 28.04.2009, a notice under Section 143(2) was also issued to the assessee

THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX vs. M/S RAJMAHAL SILKS

The appeal is disposed of

Bench: ALOK ARADHE,H.T. NARENDRA PRASAD

68,815/- expenses claimed towards transportation charges were not allowable despite the transporters adducing evidence that they did not execute these transactions and the 3 payments received were only book entries which evidence was not taken into consideration in the proper perspective and consequently recorded a perverse finding? (ii) Whether the Tribunal was correct in holding that the disallowance

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

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

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

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

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

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

RNS INFRASTRUCTURE LIMITED vs. INCOME TAX SETTLEMENT COMMISSIONER

In the result, writ petitions are allowed

Bench: The Hon’Ble Mr. Justice L. Narayana Swamy Writ Petition Nos.46275-46289 Of 2016 (T-It)

153A of the Act for the said Assessment Year calling upon the petitioner to file a return of income. Accordingly, return of income was filed on 24th January 2014 returning the same income as was originally returned under Section 139 of the Act. 4. Subsequently, petitioner filed an application in Form 34-B of the Act before the first

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(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 by adopting the above adjustments to the value of the international transactions

THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX vs. M/S MINERAL ENTERPRISES LTD

Bench: The Hon'Ble Mr. Justice Ravi Malimath

153A of the Act was issued to the assessee. In response to the same, the Company filed its return of income, declaring the 4 income as originally returned. Subsequently, a notice under Section 143(2) of the Act was issued to the assessee. The Assessing Officer computed the profits of both the units on the basis of allocation

THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX vs. M/S MINERAL ENTERPRISES LTD

Bench: The Hon'Ble Mr. Justice Ravi Malimath

153A of the Act was issued to the assessee. In response to the same, the Company filed its return of income, declaring the 4 income as originally returned. Subsequently, a notice under Section 143(2) of the Act was issued to the assessee. The Assessing Officer computed the profits of both the units on the basis of allocation