THE PR. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX vs. M/S. TE CONNECTIVITY INDIA PVT. LTD.,

Accordingly dispose of the appeal as allowed

Bench: ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE,S RACHAIAH

1), 2ND FLOOR, BMTC BUILDING, 80 FEET ROAD, KORMANGALA, BENGALURU - 560 095. ...APPELLANTS (BY SRI. SUSHAL TIWARI N, ADVOCATE) AND: M/S. TE CONNECTIVITY INDIA PVT. LTD., TE PARK, 22B, DODDENAKUNDI CORPORATION, 2ND PHASE, INDUSTRIAL AREA, WHITEFIELD ROAD, BENGALURU - 560 048. PAN: AABCT7474C …RESPONDENT (BY SRI. K. SURYANARAYANA, SENIOR ADVOCATE FOR SMT. TANMAYEE RAJKUMAR, ADVOCATE) THIS ITA IS FILED UNDER SECTION

XIAOMI TECHNOLOGY INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX

In the result, I pass the following:

Bench: The Hon'Ble Mr.Justice S.R.Krishna Kumar

disallowed. On 10.08.2022, petitioner submitted a detailed response along with documents and contested the said Notice and proceedings. - 6 - 2.3 On 11.08.2022, upon obtaining approval from the 3rd respondent, the 1st respondent passed the impugned order under Section 281B of the I.T.Act provisionally attaching the subject fixed deposits of the petitioner in a sum of INR 3,700 crores

M/S AMD FAR EAST LTD., vs. THE JOINT DIRECTOR OF INCOME-TAX

Bench: S.SUJATHA,RAVI V HOSMANI

144C [5] of the Act by the DRP. Pursuant to which final assessment order was passed disallowing - 4 - deduction under Section 37[1

DELL INDIA PVT LTD vs. THE JOINT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX

Bench: The Hon’Ble Mr.Justice Aravind Kumar

144C of the Act came to be passed on 31.01.2014, Annexure-H. Being aggrieved by the same petitioner is said to have filed an appeal and same is filed before first appellate authority and same is pending. 3. First respondent has issued a notice under section 148 of the Income Tax Act to the petitioner-assessee on 27.03.2014 Annexure

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

Bench: S.SUJATHA,RAVI V HOSMANI

144C(1) of the Act? F. Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Honourable ITAT was right in law in upholding the initiation of proceedings under section 153C though the requisition proceedings are invalid? G. Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Honourable ITAT was right in law in upholding

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

Bench: S.SUJATHA,RAVI V HOSMANI

144C(1) of the Act? F. Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Honourable ITAT was right in law in upholding the initiation of proceedings under section 153C though the requisition proceedings are invalid? G. Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Honourable ITAT was right in law in upholding

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

Bench: S.SUJATHA,RAVI V HOSMANI

144C(1) of the Act? F. Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Honourable ITAT was right in law in upholding the initiation of proceedings under section 153C though the requisition proceedings are invalid? G. Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Honourable ITAT was right in law in upholding

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

Bench: S.SUJATHA,RAVI V HOSMANI

144C(1) of the Act? F. Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Honourable ITAT was right in law in upholding the initiation of proceedings under section 153C though the requisition proceedings are invalid? G. Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Honourable ITAT was right in law in upholding

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

Bench: S.SUJATHA,RAVI V HOSMANI

144C(1) of the Act? F. Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Honourable ITAT was right in law in upholding the initiation of proceedings under section 153C though the requisition proceedings are invalid? G. Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Honourable ITAT was right in law in upholding

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

Bench: S.SUJATHA,RAVI V HOSMANI

144C(1) of the Act? F. Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Honourable ITAT was right in law in upholding the initiation of proceedings under section 153C though the requisition proceedings are invalid? G. Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Honourable ITAT was right in law in upholding

PR.COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-7 vs. M/S TEXPORT OVERSEAS PVT LTD

Bench: ARAVIND KUMAR,SURAJ GOVINDARAJ

1) BMTC COMPLEX KORAMANGALA BANGALORE. ...APPELLANTS (BY SRI. E.I. SANMATHI, ADVOCATE) AND: M/S TEXPORT OVERSEAS PVT.LTD NO.86D-1, 2ND STAGE INDUSTRIAL SUB-URB YESHWANTHPUR BENGALURU - 560 022. …RESPONDENT (BY SRI. S. SHARATH, ADVOCATE AND SRI. CHYTHANYA K.K, ADVOCATE) 3 THIS APPEAL IS FILED UNDER SECTION 260A OF INCOME TAX ACT, 1961 PRAYING TO DECIDE THE FOREGOING QUESTION OF LAW/OR SUCH OTHER

MPHASIS LIMITED vs. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX

Bench: The Hon’Ble Mr.Justice B. Veerappa Writ Petition No.13313 Of 2017 (T-It)

1)(2), 2nd Floor, BMTC Building, 80 feet Road, Koramangala VIth Block, Bengaluru – 560 095 2. The Pr. Commissioner of Income-Tax, Bangalore -4, BMTC Building, 80 feet Road, Koramangala VIth Block, Bengaluru – 560 095. …Respondents (By Sri. K.V.Aravind, Advocate) 2 This Writ Petition is filed under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India praying to direct

HERBALIFE INTERNATIONAL INDIA PVT LTD vs. THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX

In the result, the assessee's appeal for

Bench: V KAMESWAR RAO,S RACHAIAH

disallowed. 6. Aggrieved by the order of Respondent No.1, the appellant preferred an appeal before the Tribunal challenging the jurisdiction of Respondent No.1 to initiate Revisionary Proceedings under Section 263 of - 8 - ITA No. 433 of 2018 the IT Act. The said appeal being the appeal in ITA No.611/Bang/2014, the Tribunal vide its impugned order dated 02.02.2018, dismissed the appeal

PR COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-6 vs. M/S SAPA EXTRUSION INDIA PVT LTD

In the result, the appeal fails and is hereby

Bench: ALOK ARADHE,M.NAGAPRASANNA

1) of the Act. Thereafter, the case was taken up for scrutiny and the assessment was concluded under Section 143(3) read with 144C of the Act by which the assessee’s loss was determined at `31,49,38,785/- by disallowing

NOVO NORDISK INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED vs. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX

In the result, I proceed to pass the following:

Bench: The Hon’Ble Mr.Justice Aravind Kumar

1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 20TH DAY OF MARCH 2015 BEFORE THE HON’BLE MR.JUSTICE ARAVIND KUMAR WRIT PETITION NO.9487/2015(T-IT) BETWEEN: NOVO NORDISK INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED (A PRIVATE COMPANY LIMITED BY SHARES INCORPORATED UNDER THE COMPANIES ACT, 1956) HAVING ITS OFFICES AT: PLOT NO.32, 47-50 EPIP AREA, WHITEFIELD BENGALURU