Principal Commissioner of Income Tax - 5 vs. M/s Vijay Textiles Limited

The appeal is dismissed

Bench: RAMESH RANGANATHAN,M.SATYANARAYANA MURTHY

Section 110 of the Act, if an AOP is chargeable to tax at maximum marginal rate then the share of profits in the hands of the members is not chargeable to tax at all. 19. Now against the above contours of taxability of an AOP, we have to see the facts of the case before us. The first

THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-III vs. M/S. SOMA ENTERPRISES LTD

The appeal is disposed off accordingly

Bench: The Hon'Ble Mr. Justice Ravi Malimath

4 amounting to Rs.8,41,36,636/- which includes depreciation of the building block of Rs.4,92,10,011/-. The Assessing Officer came to the conclusion that the asseessee is not entitled to claim deduction of any amount twice, while arriving at the income of the concern. Accordingly, the depreciation claimed by the assessee in respect of the buildings amounting

The Commissioner of Income Tax-IV, vs. Mars TelecomSystems (P) Limited

Bench: RAMESH RANGANATHAN,M.SATYANARAYANA MURTHY

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: Provided further that nothing contained in the first proviso shall apply in a case where any income in relation to any asset (including financial interest

The Comissioner of Income Tax III, vs. Smt. Shanti Singh,

Bench: RAMESH RANGANATHAN,M.SATYANARAYANA MURTHY

139 has not e relating to such incom the books of account a in the normal course search or requisition r (e) where any order of se sub-section (4) of sect order; (f) where an assessment o made earlier under c the basis of such asses Explanation. For the purposes income,- (a) the total income

The Commissioner of Income Tax -V, vs. M/S Secunderabad Club

Bench: V.V.S.RAO,RAMESH RANGANATHAN

4. In the three writ petitions, the assessee argues that without any new or tangible materials, the AO could not have issued the impugned notices, upon a re-examination, as it were, of the existing record. It is contended that there is no suggestion in the two impugned notices that the returns did not make full disclosure; rather the materials

THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-IV vs. M/S QUALITY CARE INDIA LTD

Bench: A.SHANKAR NARAYANA,V RAMASUBRAMANIAN

4. Subsequently, there was a search and seizure operation under Section 132, as a consequence of which, proceedings were initiated under Section 153A. The assessment was completed under Section 143(3) r/w Section 153A. After completion of the assessment, the Assessing Officer reopened the assessment under Section 147 by issuing a notice under Section 148, on 31.03.2011. 5. The reason

The Commissioner of Income Tax-V vs. Smt.R.Amala Devi

Bench: RAMESH RANGANATHAN,M.SATYANARAYANA MURTHY

4 5. The impugned order of the ITAT is challenged by the appellant primarily on the ground that the CIT(A) as well as ITAT failed to appreciate that assumption of jurisdiction by the Income Tax Assessing Officer for framing an assessment order under Section 144 of the Act did not have the sanction of law, in that, the case

COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-II vs. M/S.TRANSPORT CORPORATION OF INDIA

In the result, we set aside the assessment orders, except to

Bench: P.SAM KOSHY,LAXMI NARAYANA ALISHETTY

139, 140 and 142 of 2014 -------------------------------------------------- DATED THIS THE 19th DAY OF SEPTEMBER, 2014 JUDGMENT ANTONY DOMINIC , J . These are appeals filed by the assessee under the Income-tax Act, challenging the orders of the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals), Kochi and the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal, Kochi concerning the assessment years