SHRI. MUNINAGA REDDY vs. THE ASST. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME -TAX CIRCLE 6 (1)

Appeals are allowed to the aforesaid extent

Bench: ARAVIND KUMAR,JAYANT PATEL

260-A OF INCOME TAX ACT, 1961, ARISING OUT OF THE ORDER DATED 20.01.2016 PASSED IN M.P/M.A.NO.62/BANG/2015 2 AND DATED 13.01.2015 IN ITA NO.859/BANG/2012, FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2006-07. THESE APPEALS COMING ON FOR ORDERS THIS DAY, JAYANT PATEL J, DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING : JUDGMENT Appellant – assessee has preferred the present appeal. However, learned counsel appearing for the appellant after

THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX vs. M/S MAKINO ASIA PVT LTD

Bench: B.MANOHAR,DILIP B.BHOSALE

260-A of the Income Tax Act, 1961, is directed against the order dated 15.09.2006 rendered by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Bangalore, (for short ‘the Tribunal’) in ITA No.3026/Bang/2004. By this order, the Tribunal confirmed the order dated 23.07.2004 passed by the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-IV, Bangalore, (for short “the Appellate Authority”) in penalty proceedings under Section

THE PR. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIT(A) vs. M/S DECCAN MINING SYNDICATE PVT LTD

Bench: S.SUJATHA,VINEET KOTHARI

u/s 132 of the Act and therefore such a surrender cannot amount to voluntary surrender and the Assessing Authority was justified in imposing penalty under Section 271[1][c] of the Act, rejecting the explanation given by the Respondent-Assessee. He has relied upon the decision of this Court in the case of ‘Commissioner of Income Tax v. Manjunatha Cotton

THE PR. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIT(A) vs. M/S DECCAN MINING SYNDICATE PVT LTD

Bench: S.SUJATHA,VINEET KOTHARI

u/s 132 of the Act and therefore such a surrender cannot amount to voluntary surrender and Date of Judgment 21-06-2018, ITA No.502/2017 The Pr. Commissioner of Income Tax CIT(A) & Another Vs. M/s Deccan Mining Syndicate Pvt. Ltd. 10/18 the Assessing Authority was justified in imposing penalty under Section 271[1][c] of the Act, rejecting the explanation

THE PR. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIT(A) vs. M/S DECCAN MINING SYNDICATE PVT LTD

Bench: S.SUJATHA,VINEET KOTHARI

u/s 132 of the Act and therefore such a Date of Judgment 21-06-2018, ITA No.505/2017 The Pr. Commissioner of Income Tax CIT(A) & another Vs. M/s Deccan Mining Syndicate Pvt. Ltd. 10/18 surrender cannot amount to voluntary surrender and the Assessing Authority was justified in imposing penalty under Section 271[1][c] of the Act, rejecting the explanation

THE PR. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIT(A) vs. M/S DECCAN MINING SYNDICATE PVT LTD

Bench: S.SUJATHA,VINEET KOTHARI

u/s 132 of the Act and therefore such a surrender cannot amount to voluntary surrender and Date of Judgment 21-06-2018, ITA No.500/2017 The Pr. Commissioner of Income Tax CIT(A) & Another Vs. M/s Deccan Mining Syndicate Pvt. Ltd. 10/18 the Assessing Authority was justified in imposing penalty under Section 271[1][c] of the Act, rejecting the explanation

THE PR. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX vs. M/S DECCAN MINING SYNDICATE PVT LTD

Bench: S.SUJATHA,VINEET KOTHARI

u/s 132 of the Act and therefore such a Date of Judgment 21-06-2018, ITA No.506/2017 The Pr. Commissioner of Income Tax CIT(A) & Another Vs. M/s Deccan Mining Syndicate Pvt. Ltd. 10/18 surrender cannot amount to voluntary surrender and the Assessing Authority was justified in imposing penalty under Section 271[1][c] of the Act, rejecting the explanation

THE PR. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIT(A) vs. M/S DECCAN MINING SYNDICATE PVT LTD

Bench: S.SUJATHA,VINEET KOTHARI

u/s 132 of the Act and therefore such a surrender cannot amount to voluntary surrender and Date of Judgment 21-06-2018, ITA No.503/2017 The Pr. Commissioner of Income Tax CIT(A) & another Vs. M/s Deccan Mining Syndicate Pvt. Ltd. 10/18 the Assessing Authority was justified in imposing penalty under Section 271[1][c] of the Act, rejecting the explanation

THE PR. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIT(A) vs. M/S DECCAN MINING SYNDICATE PVT LTD

Bench: S.SUJATHA,VINEET KOTHARI

u/s 132 of the Act and therefore such a surrender cannot amount to voluntary surrender and Date of Judgment 21-06-2018, ITA No.501/2017 The Pr. Commissioner of Income Tax CIT(A) & another Vs. M/s Deccan Mining Syndicate Pvt. Ltd. 10/18 the Assessing Authority was justified in imposing penalty under Section 271[1][c] of the Act, rejecting the explanation

THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX vs. THE SANDUR MANGANESE and IRON ORES LTD

Bench: N.KUMAR,H.S.KEMPANNA

260-A of I.T. Act, 1961, praying to set aside the order dated 23.12.2005 passed in ITA No.44/Bang/2000 and etc. This appeal coming for final hearing on this day, N.Kumar J, delivered the following: : 2 : JUDGMENT 1. This appeal is by the Revenue challenging the order passed by the Tribunal setting aside the order of the Commissioner for Income

M/S GAYATHRI EXPORTS vs. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX

Appeal is allowed

Bench: S SUNIL DUTT YADAV,B.S PATIL

260-A of Income Tax Act 1961, arising out of Order dated:12/09/2014 passed in ITA No.83/Bang/2013, for the Assessment Year 2009-2010 2 praying to (a) Formulate the substantial questions of law stated above. (b) Allow the appeal and set-aside the order of the ITAT bearing ITA No.83/Bang/2013 dated:12/09/2014 (Annexure-A). This ITA coming on for preliminary

SRI.P.M.ABDULLA vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER

In the result, the appeal is allowed

Bench: The Commissioner

SECTION 260-A OF INCOME TAX ACT 1961, ARISING OUT OF ORDER DATED 17.10.2016 PASSED IN ITA NO.1223 & 1224/BANG/ 2012, FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEARS 2003-2004 & 2004-2005. PRAYING TO 1. FORMULATE THE SUBSTANTIAL QUESTIONS OF LAW STATED ABOVE. 2. ALLOW THE APPEAL AND SET-ASIDE THE ORDER OF THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL BEARING ITA NO.1223 & 1224/BANG/2012

THE PRL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME vs. M/S NIRANI SUGARS LTD.,

The appeal stands disposed off

Bench: S.SUNIL DUTT YADAV,VIJAYKUMAR A.PATIL

Section 260-A of the Income Tax Act challenging the order passed in I.T.A. No. 126/PAN/2018 relating to assessment year 2004-05. It is noticed that the tax effect in the appeal in terms of the memo dated 29.07.2025 is Rs.1,01,46,103/- raising the following substantial questions of law: 1. Whether omission of the Assessing Officer to explicitly

PR. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-4 vs. M/S MINITECHS

Bench: B.V.NAGARATHNA,JAYANT PATEL

260-A OF INCOME TAX ACT 1961, ARISING OUT OF ORDER DATED:26/05/2015 PASSED IN ITA NO.1228/BANG/2013, FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEARS 2007-08, PRAYING TO DICIDE THE FOREGOING 2 QUESTION OF LAW AND / OR SUCH OTHER QUESTIONS OF LAW AS MAY BE FORMULATED BY THE HON’BLE COURT AS DEEMED FIT AND SET ASIDE THE APPELLATE ORDER DATED 26.05.2015 PASSED

PR. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX vs. SMT. G. LAKSHMI ARUNA

Bench: K.SOMASHEKAR,UMESH M ADIGA

penalty proceedings under Section 271(1)(c) and 271F were initiated. 12 12. It is observed in paragraph 5.4 of the order dated 31.03.2013, that in the previous years, the assessee has opted to club the income of minor children with her income, as the TDS deducted from the Banks are in the name of assessee. Therefore, the income

PR. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX vs. SHRI. GALI JANARDHANA REDDY

Bench: K.SOMASHEKAR,UMESH M ADIGA

penalty proceedings under Section 271(1)(c) and 271F were initiated. 10.It is observed in paragraph 5.4 of the order dated 31.03.2013 that in the previous years, the assessee has opted to club the income of minor children with her income, as the TDS 11 deducted from the Banks are in the name of assessee. Therefore, the income of minor

RAMA vs. STATE OF KARNATAKA

Bench: ARAVIND KUMAR,B.A.PATIL

SECTIONS 2, 7, 11, 20 OF THE KARNATAKA LAND GRABBING AND PROHIBITION ACT OF 2011 AS VOID, ARBITRARY, UNJUST AS THEY ARE VIOLATIVE OF PROVISIONS OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA. IN W.P. NO.22817/2018: BETWEEN: SRI. MANJUNATHA AGED ABOUT 49 YEARS S/O LATE GOVINDAPPA R/AT H. THIMMAPURA VILLAGE 122 BELENHALLI POST, KASABA HOBLI TARIKERE TALUK, CHIKKAMAGALURU DISTRICT - 577 228. ...PETITIONER

P. D. PONNAPPA vs. STATE OF KARNATAKA

Bench: ARAVIND KUMAR,B.A.PATIL

SECTIONS 2, 7, 11, 20 OF THE KARNATAKA LAND GRABBING AND PROHIBITION ACT OF 2011 AS VOID, ARBITRARY, UNJUST AS THEY ARE VIOLATIVE OF PROVISIONS OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA. IN W.P. NO.22817/2018: BETWEEN: SRI. MANJUNATHA AGED ABOUT 49 YEARS S/O LATE GOVINDAPPA R/AT H. THIMMAPURA VILLAGE 122 BELENHALLI POST, KASABA HOBLI TARIKERE TALUK, CHIKKAMAGALURU DISTRICT - 577 228. ...PETITIONER