Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 26 (0.42 seconds)Section 37 in Sai University Act, 2018 [Entire Act]
Section 153A in The Income Tax Act, 1961 [Entire Act]
Section 10B in The Income Tax Act, 1961 [Entire Act]
Vivimed Labs Ltd., (Formerly Known As ... vs Acit, Circle-3(3), Hyd, Hyderabad on 3 February, 2017
to 986/Bang/2015
43
ITA Nos.738 to 741 & 983
to 986/Bang/2015
44
ITA Nos.738 to 741 & 983
to 986/Bang/2015
45
ITA Nos.738 to 741 & 983
to 986/Bang/2015
46
ITA Nos.738 to 741 & 983
to 986/Bang/2015
47
ITA Nos.738 to 741 & 983
to 986/Bang/2015
48
ITA Nos.738 to 741 & 983
to 986/Bang/2015
49
ITA Nos.738 to 741 & 983
to 986/Bang/2015
6.2.4 In the case on hand, the assessment for Assessment Year 2008-
09 has been completed as the time limit for issue of notice had expired
on 31.10.2009; before the date of search on 19.7.2010. Therefore, since
no assessment was pending, there was no question of abatement of
assessment. Respectfully, following the decisions of the Hon'ble
Karnataka High Court in the case of IBC Knowledge Park Pvt. Ltd. (supra),
we hold that for Assessment Year 2008-09 no assessment had abated
and therefore the assessment under Section 143(3) r.w.s. 153A of the Act
could have been made based only on incriminating documents / material
found and seized in the course of search. That clearly not being the
factual position in the case on hand, since no incriminating material was
found / seized, we are of the view and hold the order of assessment for
Assessment Year 2008-09 passed under Section 143(3) r.w.s. 153A of the
Act vide order dt.30.3.2013 is bad in law and accordingly cancelled.
The Mines And Minerals (Development And Regulation) Act, 1957
Commissioner Of Income Tax vs International Tractors Ltd on 28 March, 2018
The AO has erred in disallowing the claim u/s 10B amounting to Rs.
212,38,08,115/- for the reasons he has mentioned in the assessment order for
the AY 2005-06 dt.11/03/2013 and AY 2006-07 dt.13.03.2013 in the case of
Dinesh Kumar Singhi. Shri. Dinesh Kumar Singhi has filed his objection by
filing appeal and the result of the appeal for AY 2005-06 & AY 2006-07 on this
issue will be relevant. In any case the issue cannot be dealt afresh as the claim
is for eigth year in respect of an undertaking on which the issue of deduction
u/s10B was already resolved in favour of the assessee. The Hon'ble High
Court of Karnataka in Sami Labs Ltd vs ACIT (334 ITR 157) - PB page 60 and
Hon'ble Delhi HC in CIT vs International Tractors (CLPB page 206) has held
that once the claim for initial year is settled the same cannot be revisited on the
same set of facts and law. The CIT-A however has confirmed the action of the
AO on this issue by holding as under: