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

1) are, that the Assessing Officer is satisfied that any valuable assets or books of account or document seized or requisitioned belongs to a person other than the person referred in section 153A of the Act. In such a case, he shall handover to the Assessing Officer having jurisdiction of such other person, the books of account or document

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

1) are, that the Assessing Officer is satisfied that any valuable assets or books of account or document seized or requisitioned belongs to a person other than the person referred in section 153A of the Act. In such a case, he shall handover to the Assessing Officer having jurisdiction of such other person, the books of account or document

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

1) are, that the Assessing Officer is satisfied that any valuable assets or books of account or document seized or requisitioned belongs to a person other than the person referred in section 153A of the Act. In such a case, he shall handover to the Assessing Officer having jurisdiction of such other person, the books of account or document

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 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

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 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

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

1), BANGALORE, IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE AND EQUITY. THIS ITA COMING ON FOR HEARING, THIS DAY, ALOK ARADHE J., DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: JUDGMENT This appeal under Section 260A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as the Act for short) has been preferred by the revenue. The subject matter of the appeal pertains to the Assessment

PAWAN KUMAR MEHTA vs. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX

In the result, the substantial question of law Nos

Bench: ALOK ARADHE,HEMANT CHANDANGOUDAR

1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 19TH DAY OF JULY 2021 PRESENT THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE ALOK ARADHE AND THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE HEMANT CHANDANGOUDAR I.T.A. NO.561 OF 2015 BETWEEN: PAWAN KUMAR MEHTA NO.5, 2ND FLOOR, MIDDLE SCHOOL ROAD V.V.PURAM BANGALORE - 560 004 ... APPELLANT (BY SRI.A.SHANKAR SR. ADV. FOR SRI.ANNAMALAI

THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX vs. KENNAMETAL INC,USA

Bench: KRISHNA S DIXIT,RAMACHANDRA D. HUDDAR

1) prescribes the limitation period for passing an order of assessment. The maximum time limit, as applicable during the relevant period, was two years from the end of the assessment year. Similarly, - 11 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:30667-DB WA No. 68 of 2024 in cases where assessment, reassessment, or recomputation is to be made under Section

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

The appeals are allowed

Bench: N.KUMAR,H.S.KEMPANNA

68,765/- `75,35,23,140/- Smt. S.M.Parvathi `11,79,54,693/- `41,07,23,368/- Sri.S.Madhava (HUF) `4,37,24,300/- `12,05,96,382/- The enquiries with the purchasers and perusal of their bank accounts reveal that the assessee has followed a circuitous method of transferring money from one account to other on the same day without

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

The appeals are allowed

Bench: N.KUMAR,H.S.KEMPANNA

68,765/- `75,35,23,140/- Smt. S.M.Parvathi `11,79,54,693/- `41,07,23,368/- Sri.S.Madhava (HUF) `4,37,24,300/- `12,05,96,382/- The enquiries with the purchasers and perusal of their bank accounts reveal that the assessee has followed a circuitous method of transferring money from one account to other on the same day without

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

The appeals are allowed

Bench: N.KUMAR,H.S.KEMPANNA

68,765/- `75,35,23,140/- Smt. S.M.Parvathi `11,79,54,693/- `41,07,23,368/- Sri.S.Madhava (HUF) `4,37,24,300/- `12,05,96,382/- The enquiries with the purchasers and perusal of their bank accounts reveal that the assessee has followed a circuitous method of transferring money from one account to other on the same day without

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

The appeals are allowed

Bench: N.KUMAR,H.S.KEMPANNA

68,765/- `75,35,23,140/- Smt. S.M.Parvathi `11,79,54,693/- `41,07,23,368/- Sri.S.Madhava (HUF) `4,37,24,300/- `12,05,96,382/- The enquiries with the purchasers and perusal of their bank accounts reveal that the assessee has followed a circuitous method of transferring money from one account to other on the same day without

COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX vs. S.PARVATHI MADHAVA

The appeals are allowed

Bench: N.KUMAR,H.S.KEMPANNA

68,765/- `75,35,23,140/- Smt. S.M.Parvathi `11,79,54,693/- `41,07,23,368/- Sri.S.Madhava (HUF) `4,37,24,300/- `12,05,96,382/- The enquiries with the purchasers and perusal of their bank accounts reveal that the assessee has followed a circuitous method of transferring money from one account to other on the same day without

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 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