ALTIMETRIK INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF

The appeals are disposed of

Bench: S.SUJATHA,VINEET KOTHARI

SECTION 260-A OF I.T. ACT 1961, PRAYING TO FORMULATE THE SUBSTANTIAL QUESTIONS OF LAW. ALLOW THE APPEAL AND SET ASIDE TO THE EXTENT QUESTIONED HEREIN, THE COMMON ORDER PRONOUNCED ON 23/12/2016 BY THE ITAT, BENGALURU BENCH ‘C’, BENGALURU, IN IT(TP)A Nos. 36 & 27/BANG/2011 AND C.O. No.219/BANG/2015 (ANNEUXRE-G) & ETC., THESE I.T.As. COMING ON FOR HEARING THIS

THE CENTRAL BOARD OF TRUSTEES vs. MR. GOPAL S HEBBALLI

Appeals are dismissed as not

Bench: The Hon’Ble Mr.Justice K. Natarajan Criminal Appeal No.100124/2022 C/W Criminal Appeal Nos. 100123/2022, 100125/2022, 100126/2022, 100127/2022, 100130/2022, 100131/2022, 100132/2022, 100133/2022, 100134/2022, 100135/2022, 100136/2022, 100137/2022, 100138/2022, 100139/2022, 100140/2022, 100141/2022, 100142/2022, 100143/2022, 100144/2022, 100145/2022, 100172/2022, 100173/2022, 100026/2022, 100077/2022, 100078/2022, 100079/2022, 100080/2022, 100081/2022, 100082/2022, 100083/2022, 100084/2022, 100085/2022, 100086/2022, 100090/2022, 100091/2022, 100092/2022, 100093/2022, 100094/2022, 100095/2022, 100114/2022

37 IN CRL.A.100094/2022 BETWEEN THE INCOME TAX DEPARTMENT REPRESENTED BY DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CENTRAL CIRCLE-1, PLOT NO. 123, SARAF COLONY KAHANAPUR ROAD, SHRADDHA BUILDING TILAKWADI, BELGAVI-590006 ...APPELLANT (By Sri. Y.V.RAVIRAJ, ADV.) AND 1 . M/S UPKAR AND UPKAR INDIA PARTNERSHIP FIRM OCCUPATION. BUSINESS OFF. P.B. ROAD, YALLAPUR ONI, HUBLI- 580028 REP.BY MANAGING PARTNER, SHRI.FAKRUDDIN A MAGAR

M/S THE KARNATAKA STATE CO-OPERATIVE APEX BANK vs. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX

In the result, the appeal is disposed of

Bench: ALOK ARADHE,HEMANT CHANDANGOUDAR

37 of the Act. In support of aforesaid submissions, reference has been made to 'ITO VS. MEWALAL DWARKA PRASAD', (1989) 176 ITR 529 (SC), 'ITO VS. K.L.SRIHARI (HUF) (2001) 250 ITR 193 (SC), and 'ACIT VS. 9 RAJESH JHAVERI STOCK BROKERS P. LTD.', (2007) 291 ITR 500 (SC). 5. On the other hand, learned counsel for the revenue submitted that

SARVODAYA EDUCATION TRUST vs. THE UNION OF INDIA

Bench: The Hon'Ble Mr. Justice Ashok B. Hinchigeri

37. Sri T.L.Kiran Kumar, the learned Additional Government Advocate appearing for the Controlling Authority prays for the dismissal of these writ petitions. 38. In the course of rejoinder, Sri Dhananjay submits that the decisions of the High Courts of Delhi, Punjab and Haryana do not come to the rescue of the Central Government in any way. The decisions

THE PR. COMMISIONER INCOME TAX vs. M/S. GMR INFRASTRUCTURE LTD

Appeals stand disposed of accordingly

Bench: S.SUJATHA,RAVI V HOSMANI

37. On a conspectus of Section 153A(1) of the Act, read with the provisos thereto, and in the light of the law explained in the aforementioned decisions, the legal position that emerges is as under: i. Once a search takes place under Section 132 of the Act, notice under Section 153 A (1) will have to be mandatorily issued

PR COMMISSIONER OF vs. M/S GMR HYDERABAD

Appeals stand disposed of accordingly

Bench: S.SUJATHA,RAVI V HOSMANI

37. On a conspectus of Section 153A(1) of the Act, read with the provisos thereto, and in the light of the law explained in the aforementioned decisions, the legal position that emerges is as under: i. Once a search takes place under Section 132 of the Act, notice under Section 153 A (1) will have to be mandatorily issued

PR COMMISSIONER OF vs. M/S GMR HYDERABAD

Appeals stand disposed of accordingly

Bench: S.SUJATHA,RAVI V HOSMANI

37. On a conspectus of Section 153A(1) of the Act, read with the provisos thereto, and in the light of the law explained in the aforementioned decisions, the legal position that emerges is as under: i. Once a search takes place under Section 132 of the Act, notice under Section 153 A (1) will have to be mandatorily issued

PR COMMISSIONER OF vs. M/S GMR HYDERABAD

Appeals stand disposed of accordingly

Bench: S.SUJATHA,RAVI V HOSMANI

37. On a conspectus of Section 153A(1) of the Act, read with the provisos thereto, and in the light of the law explained in the aforementioned decisions, the legal position that emerges is as under: i. Once a search takes place under Section 132 of the Act, notice under Section 153 A (1) will have to be mandatorily issued

PR COMMISSIONER OF vs. M/S GMR HYDERABAD

Appeals stand disposed of accordingly

Bench: S.SUJATHA,RAVI V HOSMANI

37. On a conspectus of Section 153A(1) of the Act, read with the provisos thereto, and in the light of the law explained in the aforementioned decisions, the legal position that emerges is as under: i. Once a search takes place under Section 132 of the Act, notice under Section 153 A (1) will have to be mandatorily issued

THE PR. COMMISIONER OF INCOME TAX vs. M/S. GMR INFRASTRUCTURE LTD

Appeals stand disposed of accordingly

Bench: S.SUJATHA,RAVI V HOSMANI

37. On a conspectus of Section 153A(1) of the Act, read with the provisos thereto, and in the light of the law explained in the aforementioned decisions, the legal position that emerges is as under: i. Once a search takes place under Section 132 of the Act, notice under Section 153 A (1) will have to be mandatorily issued

PR COMMISSIONER OF vs. M/S GMR HYDERABAD

Appeals stand disposed of accordingly

Bench: S.SUJATHA,RAVI V HOSMANI

37. On a conspectus of Section 153A(1) of the Act, read with the provisos thereto, and in the light of the law explained in the aforementioned decisions, the legal position that emerges is as under: i. Once a search takes place under Section 132 of the Act, notice under Section 153 A (1) will have to be mandatorily issued

THE PR. COMMISIONER OF INCOME TAX vs. M/S. GMR INFRASTRUCTURE LTD

Appeals stand disposed of accordingly

Bench: S.SUJATHA,RAVI V HOSMANI

37. On a conspectus of Section 153A(1) of the Act, read with the provisos thereto, and in the light of the law explained in the aforementioned decisions, the legal position that emerges is as under: i. Once a search takes place under Section 132 of the Act, notice under Section 153 A (1) will have to be mandatorily issued

PR COMMISSIONER OF vs. M/S GMR HYDERABAD

Appeals stand disposed of accordingly

Bench: S.SUJATHA,RAVI V HOSMANI

37. On a conspectus of Section 153A(1) of the Act, read with the provisos thereto, and in the light of the law explained in the aforementioned decisions, the legal position that emerges is as under: i. Once a search takes place under Section 132 of the Act, notice under Section 153 A (1) will have to be mandatorily issued

PR. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (CENTRAL) vs. M/S. DELHI INTERNATIONAL AIRPORT PVT. LTD.,

Appeals stand disposed of accordingly

Bench: S.SUJATHA,RAVI V HOSMANI

37. On a conspectus of Section 153A(1) of the Act, read with the provisos thereto, and in the light of the law explained in the aforementioned decisions, the legal position that emerges is as under: i. Once a search takes place under Section 132 of the Act, notice under Section 153 A (1) will have to be mandatorily issued

THE Commissioner of Income Tax vs. M/S INFOSYS LTD

Appeal is dismissed; and

Bench: P.S.DINESH KUMAR,T.G. SHIVASHANKARE GOWDA

section 206AA in case of Non-Residents only if the deductee furnishes details and documents specified in sub clause(2) of the notification? - 3 - NC: 2023:KHC:33064-DB ITA No. 345 of 2023 2. To a pointed question as to whether the issues raised in this appeal are covered by the decision of this court in The Commissioner

M/S HUBLI ELECTRICITY SUPPLY CO. vs. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER

In the result, the appeals are disposed of as

Bench: JOHN MICHAEL CUNHA,S.SUJATHA

condoned by the appellate authority and the same came : 11 : to be rejected in further appeal before the ITAT. The assessee was under a bonafide impression that a fresh order of the assessing authority shall be passed before further course of action is taken. However, when the consequential order was passed by the assessing officer, an appeal was filed before

M/S TEACHERS CO OPERATIVE BANK vs. UNION OF INDIA

Bench: The Hon’Ble Mr.Justice Aravind Kumar

37 YEARS. 5. SKYTECH INFINITE PLATFORM PVT.LTD., NO.6/1, MUNISWAMAPPA ROAD, MARUTHI SEVA NAGAR POST, BANASWADI MAIN ROAD, BANGALORE-560033 BY ITS DIRECTOR SRI.P.DEIVEEKAN S/O N.PARAMASIVAN, AGED 42 YEARS 6. STRATYCON BUSINESS SOLUTIONS PVT. LTD. NO.319, 14TH CROSS, 2ND BLOCK, JAYANAGAR, BANGALORE-560 011 BY ITS DIRECTOR SRI.RAVIPRAKASH KONI, S/O GANAPAYYA MADHYASTHA KONI 7. T-TEL COMMUNICATIONS INDIA PVT. LTD. NO.424

SRI CHANDRAKAR K KAMATH vs. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF

Bench: The Hon’Ble Mr.Justice Aravind Kumar

37 YEARS. 5. SKYTECH INFINITE PLATFORM PVT.LTD., NO.6/1, MUNISWAMAPPA ROAD, MARUTHI SEVA NAGAR POST, BANASWADI MAIN ROAD, BANGALORE-560033 BY ITS DIRECTOR SRI.P.DEIVEEKAN S/O N.PARAMASIVAN, AGED 42 YEARS 6. STRATYCON BUSINESS SOLUTIONS PVT. LTD. NO.319, 14TH CROSS, 2ND BLOCK, JAYANAGAR, BANGALORE-560 011 BY ITS DIRECTOR SRI.RAVIPRAKASH KONI, S/O GANAPAYYA MADHYASTHA KONI 7. T-TEL COMMUNICATIONS INDIA PVT. LTD. NO.424