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

120 4) Sale of scrap Rs.11,60,671 5) Other misc. receipts from trading Miscellaneous receipts Rs.30,58,776 6) Rental from staff quarters Rs.28,53,683/- 7) Rental from others Rs.1,36,591 8) Excess found on physical Verification of cash Rs.4,419 9) Excess found on physical Verification of materials stock Rs.4,19,297 10) Commission for collection

DEPA INDIA PRIVATE LTD. vs. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA

Of the Department's clouded interpretation of the Centum

Bench: ANAND BYRAREDDY

120 28 It is further pertinent to note that the underlying basis for the substitution, as stated in the Statement of Objects and Reasons for the 2015 KVAT Amendment Act, is as follows; “It is considered necessary to amend the Karnataka Value Added Tax Act, 2003 to give effect to the proposals made in the Budget and matters connected therewith

ACE DESIGNERS LIMITED vs. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA

Of the Department's clouded interpretation of the Centum

Bench: ANAND BYRAREDDY

120 28 It is further pertinent to note that the underlying basis for the substitution, as stated in the Statement of Objects and Reasons for the 2015 KVAT Amendment Act, is as follows; “It is considered necessary to amend the Karnataka Value Added Tax Act, 2003 to give effect to the proposals made in the Budget and matters connected therewith

INGRAM MICRO INDIA PVT. LTD. vs. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA

Of the Department's clouded interpretation of the Centum

Bench: ANAND BYRAREDDY

120 28 It is further pertinent to note that the underlying basis for the substitution, as stated in the Statement of Objects and Reasons for the 2015 KVAT Amendment Act, is as follows; “It is considered necessary to amend the Karnataka Value Added Tax Act, 2003 to give effect to the proposals made in the Budget and matters connected therewith

INGRAM MICRO INDIA PVT.LTD. vs. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA

Of the Department's clouded interpretation of the Centum

Bench: ANAND BYRAREDDY

120 28 It is further pertinent to note that the underlying basis for the substitution, as stated in the Statement of Objects and Reasons for the 2015 KVAT Amendment Act, is as follows; “It is considered necessary to amend the Karnataka Value Added Tax Act, 2003 to give effect to the proposals made in the Budget and matters connected therewith

M/S. HINDUSTAN COCA COLA vs. STATE OF KARNATAKA

Of the Department's clouded interpretation of the Centum

Bench: ANAND BYRAREDDY

120 28 It is further pertinent to note that the underlying basis for the substitution, as stated in the Statement of Objects and Reasons for the 2015 KVAT Amendment Act, is as follows; “It is considered necessary to amend the Karnataka Value Added Tax Act, 2003 to give effect to the proposals made in the Budget and matters connected therewith

M/S. HINDUSTAN COCA COLA vs. STATE OF KARNATAKA

Of the Department's clouded interpretation of the Centum

Bench: ANAND BYRAREDDY

120 28 It is further pertinent to note that the underlying basis for the substitution, as stated in the Statement of Objects and Reasons for the 2015 KVAT Amendment Act, is as follows; “It is considered necessary to amend the Karnataka Value Added Tax Act, 2003 to give effect to the proposals made in the Budget and matters connected therewith

KAVERI PLASTO CONTAINERS PVT LTD vs. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA

Of the Department's clouded interpretation of the Centum

Bench: ANAND BYRAREDDY

120 28 It is further pertinent to note that the underlying basis for the substitution, as stated in the Statement of Objects and Reasons for the 2015 KVAT Amendment Act, is as follows; “It is considered necessary to amend the Karnataka Value Added Tax Act, 2003 to give effect to the proposals made in the Budget and matters connected therewith

M/S INDIA MOTOR PARTS & ACCESSORIES LTD vs. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF

Of the Department's clouded interpretation of the Centum

Bench: ANAND BYRAREDDY

120 28 It is further pertinent to note that the underlying basis for the substitution, as stated in the Statement of Objects and Reasons for the 2015 KVAT Amendment Act, is as follows; “It is considered necessary to amend the Karnataka Value Added Tax Act, 2003 to give effect to the proposals made in the Budget and matters connected therewith

SONAL APPAREL PRIVATE LTD., vs. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA

Of the Department's clouded interpretation of the Centum

Bench: ANAND BYRAREDDY

120 28 It is further pertinent to note that the underlying basis for the substitution, as stated in the Statement of Objects and Reasons for the 2015 KVAT Amendment Act, is as follows; “It is considered necessary to amend the Karnataka Value Added Tax Act, 2003 to give effect to the proposals made in the Budget and matters connected therewith

THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX GULBARGA vs. M/S MANJUNATHA COTTON AND GINNING FACTORY

The appeals are dismissed

Bench: ARAVIND KUMAR,N.KUMAR

4 held as under: “…..It is sufficient for us to refer to section 271(1)(a), which provides that a penalty may be imposed if the Income-tax Officer is satisfied that any person has without reasonable cause failed to furnish the return of total income, and to section 276C which provides that if a person wilfully fails to furnish

THE PR. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX vs. M/S CISCO SYSTEMS

The appeals are allowed; the impugned

Bench: SATISH CHANDRA SHARMA,R. NATARAJ

disallowed the excess depreciation claimed on networking equipments. 3. The Principal Commissioner of Income Tax, Bengaluru, thereafter issued a notice under Section 263 of the Act of 1961 on 5.3.2015 and called upon the assessee to explain as to why the assessment order passed by the assessing officer under Section 143(3) of the Act of 1961 should

THE PR COMMISSIONER OF vs. M/S MAHAVEER CALYX

Bench: SATISH CHANDRA SHARMA,V SRISHANANDA

4. On the other hand, learned Senior counsel for the assessee submitted that this Court in 'CIT Vs. BRIGADE ENTERPRISES LTD.' (2020) 120 TAXMANN.COM 346 (KAR) and 'CIT Vs. SJR BUILDERS', supra and the decision of Madras High Court in 'CIT Vs. ARUN EXCELLO FOUNDATIONS (P) LTD.' (2013) 259 CTR 362, has held that accounting Standard 7 was not applicable

THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX vs. M/S MWP LTD

Bench: N.KUMAR,RATHNAKALA

4. The assessee preferred an appeal to the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), which came to be dismissed. 5. It is against the said order, the assessee preferred an appeal to the Tribunal. The Tribunal on reconsideration of the entire material on record held that the assessee had filed the return of income declaring loss. Thereafter the claim for write

THE PR COMMISSIONER OF vs. M/S MAJESTIC DEVELOPERS

Bench: SATISH CHANDRA SHARMA,V SRISHANANDA

B' BENCH, BANGALORE AS SOUGHT FOR, IN THE RESPONDENT -ASSESSEE'S CASE, IN APPEAL PROCEEDINGS IN ITA NO.1628/BANG/2016 FOR A.Y.2007-08 VIDE ANNEXURE-A. THIS I.T.A., COMING ON FOR HEARING, THIS DAY, V. SRISHANANDA. J., DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: JUDGMENT Revenue-State has preferred this appeal under Section 260-A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 [hereinafter referred

M/S SUBEX LTD vs. THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-III,

In the result, appeal is partly allowed as indicated

Bench: S.SUJATHA,RAVI V HOSMANI

120; (b) "record" shall include and shall be deemed always to have included all records relating to any proceeding under this Act - 11 - available at the time of examination by the Principal Chief Commissioner or Chief Commissioner or Principal Commissioner or Commissioner; (c) where any order referred to in this sub-section and passed by the Assessing Officer had been

THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX vs. M/S HIMALAYA DRUG COMPANY

Bench: S.SUJATHA,RAVI V HOSMANI

B. Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Honourable ITAT was right in law in upholding action under section 153C by holding that handing over of assets is not - 9 - required for assuming jurisdiction under section 153C? C. Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Honourable ITAT was right

M/S. HIMALAYA DRUG COMPANY vs. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX

Bench: S.SUJATHA,RAVI V HOSMANI

B. Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Honourable ITAT was right in law in upholding action under section 153C by holding that handing over of assets is not - 9 - required for assuming jurisdiction under section 153C? C. Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Honourable ITAT was right