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

Bench: N.KUMAR,RATHNAKALA

setting aside the order imposing penalty. 2. The assessee is a Limited Company. They are carrying on business of investment. For the assessment year 2002-03, assessee filed returns declaring loss of Rs.44,44,84,483-00. The loss comprised of the provisions 3 for diminution in the value of investment of Rs.4,40,00,000-00. The case

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

Bench: N.KUMAR,H.S.KEMPANNA

setting aside the order of the Commissioner for Income Tax Appeals imposing penalty for the first time in the appellate proceedings. 2. The assessee filed returns on 29.11.1996 claiming loss of Rs.26,03,43,978/-. Assessment was completed on 19.09.1997 showing loss of Rs.25,15,67,622/-. The said loss was reduced on account of certain disallowances including contribution

COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX vs. M/S.WINTAC LTD.,

The appeal is allowed in part

Bench: B.MANOHAR,DILIP B.BHOSALE

U/s. 260A of I.T. Act, 1961 arising out of Order dated 02-01-2006 passed in ITA.No.81/Bang/2005 for the year 2001-02, praying that this Hon’ble Court may be pleased to formulate the substantial questions of law stated therein and allow the appeal and set aside the orders passed by the ITAT, Bangalore in ITA.No.81/Bang/2005 dated

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

M/S NEW MEDIA COMPANY vs. UNION OF INDIA

Bench: The Hon’Ble Mr.Justice Aravind Kumar

U/S 200[3] OF PROVISO TO SUB SECTION [3] OF SECTION 206C OF THE INCOME TAX ACT 1961, VIDE ANNEXURES-A1 TO A3. W.P.NOs.16939-16950/2014: BETWEEN: 1. M/s.TEACHERS CO-OPERATIVE BANK LTD., NITHYANANDA COMPLEX, MAIN ROAD, MOODBIDRI-574 227, (REPRESENTED BY ITS MANAGER 26 MRS.S.USHA AGED ABOUT 56 YEARS, D/O SRI.A.P.NATH) 2. SRI SAMPATHRATHNA RAO S S/O.SUNDAR

SREE C B EDUCATIONAL AND CULTURAL TRUST vs. UNION OF INDIA

Bench: The Hon’Ble Mr.Justice Aravind Kumar

U/S 200[3] OF PROVISO TO SUB SECTION [3] OF SECTION 206C OF THE INCOME TAX ACT 1961, VIDE ANNEXURES-A1 TO A3. W.P.NOs.16939-16950/2014: BETWEEN: 1. M/s.TEACHERS CO-OPERATIVE BANK LTD., NITHYANANDA COMPLEX, MAIN ROAD, MOODBIDRI-574 227, (REPRESENTED BY ITS MANAGER 26 MRS.S.USHA AGED ABOUT 56 YEARS, D/O SRI.A.P.NATH) 2. SRI SAMPATHRATHNA RAO S S/O.SUNDAR

M/S. K K BROTHERS vs. UNION OF INDIA

Bench: The Hon’Ble Mr.Justice Aravind Kumar

U/S 200[3] OF PROVISO TO SUB SECTION [3] OF SECTION 206C OF THE INCOME TAX ACT 1961, VIDE ANNEXURES-A1 TO A3. W.P.NOs.16939-16950/2014: BETWEEN: 1. M/s.TEACHERS CO-OPERATIVE BANK LTD., NITHYANANDA COMPLEX, MAIN ROAD, MOODBIDRI-574 227, (REPRESENTED BY ITS MANAGER 26 MRS.S.USHA AGED ABOUT 56 YEARS, D/O SRI.A.P.NATH) 2. SRI SAMPATHRATHNA RAO S S/O.SUNDAR

M/S PRODIGY TECHNOVATIONS PVT LTD vs. UNION OF INDIA

Bench: The Hon’Ble Mr.Justice Aravind Kumar

U/S 200[3] OF PROVISO TO SUB SECTION [3] OF SECTION 206C OF THE INCOME TAX ACT 1961, VIDE ANNEXURES-A1 TO A3. W.P.NOs.16939-16950/2014: BETWEEN: 1. M/s.TEACHERS CO-OPERATIVE BANK LTD., NITHYANANDA COMPLEX, MAIN ROAD, MOODBIDRI-574 227, (REPRESENTED BY ITS MANAGER 26 MRS.S.USHA AGED ABOUT 56 YEARS, D/O SRI.A.P.NATH) 2. SRI SAMPATHRATHNA RAO S S/O.SUNDAR

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

Bench: The Hon’Ble Mr.Justice Aravind Kumar

U/S 200[3] OF PROVISO TO SUB SECTION [3] OF SECTION 206C OF THE INCOME TAX ACT 1961, VIDE ANNEXURES-A1 TO A3. W.P.NOs.16939-16950/2014: BETWEEN: 1. M/s.TEACHERS CO-OPERATIVE BANK LTD., NITHYANANDA COMPLEX, MAIN ROAD, MOODBIDRI-574 227, (REPRESENTED BY ITS MANAGER 26 MRS.S.USHA AGED ABOUT 56 YEARS, D/O SRI.A.P.NATH) 2. SRI SAMPATHRATHNA RAO S S/O.SUNDAR

DR V. NARAYANASWAMY vs. UNION OF INDIA

Bench: The Hon’Ble Mr.Justice Aravind Kumar

U/S 200[3] OF PROVISO TO SUB SECTION [3] OF SECTION 206C OF THE INCOME TAX ACT 1961, VIDE ANNEXURES-A1 TO A3. W.P.NOs.16939-16950/2014: BETWEEN: 1. M/s.TEACHERS CO-OPERATIVE BANK LTD., NITHYANANDA COMPLEX, MAIN ROAD, MOODBIDRI-574 227, (REPRESENTED BY ITS MANAGER 26 MRS.S.USHA AGED ABOUT 56 YEARS, D/O SRI.A.P.NATH) 2. SRI SAMPATHRATHNA RAO S S/O.SUNDAR

M/S. LAKSHMINIRMAN BANGALORE PVT.LTD vs. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX

Bench: The Hon’Ble Mr.Justice Aravind Kumar

U/S 200[3] OF PROVISO TO SUB SECTION [3] OF SECTION 206C OF THE INCOME TAX ACT 1961, VIDE ANNEXURES-A1 TO A3. W.P.NOs.16939-16950/2014: BETWEEN: 1. M/s.TEACHERS CO-OPERATIVE BANK LTD., NITHYANANDA COMPLEX, MAIN ROAD, MOODBIDRI-574 227, (REPRESENTED BY ITS MANAGER 26 MRS.S.USHA AGED ABOUT 56 YEARS, D/O SRI.A.P.NATH) 2. SRI SAMPATHRATHNA RAO S S/O.SUNDAR

MINTENT SERVICED APARTMENTS PVT LTD., vs. UNION OF INDIA

Bench: The Hon’Ble Mr.Justice Aravind Kumar

U/S 200[3] OF PROVISO TO SUB SECTION [3] OF SECTION 206C OF THE INCOME TAX ACT 1961, VIDE ANNEXURES-A1 TO A3. W.P.NOs.16939-16950/2014: BETWEEN: 1. M/s.TEACHERS CO-OPERATIVE BANK LTD., NITHYANANDA COMPLEX, MAIN ROAD, MOODBIDRI-574 227, (REPRESENTED BY ITS MANAGER 26 MRS.S.USHA AGED ABOUT 56 YEARS, D/O SRI.A.P.NATH) 2. SRI SAMPATHRATHNA RAO S S/O.SUNDAR

M/S PRAKASH BUS CORPORATION PVT LTD vs. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF

Bench: The Hon’Ble Mr.Justice Aravind Kumar

U/S 200[3] OF PROVISO TO SUB SECTION [3] OF SECTION 206C OF THE INCOME TAX ACT 1961, VIDE ANNEXURES-A1 TO A3. W.P.NOs.16939-16950/2014: BETWEEN: 1. M/s.TEACHERS CO-OPERATIVE BANK LTD., NITHYANANDA COMPLEX, MAIN ROAD, MOODBIDRI-574 227, (REPRESENTED BY ITS MANAGER 26 MRS.S.USHA AGED ABOUT 56 YEARS, D/O SRI.A.P.NATH) 2. SRI SAMPATHRATHNA RAO S S/O.SUNDAR

SRI CHANDRAKAR K KAMATH vs. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF

Bench: The Hon’Ble Mr.Justice Aravind Kumar

U/S 200[3] OF PROVISO TO SUB SECTION [3] OF SECTION 206C OF THE INCOME TAX ACT 1961, VIDE ANNEXURES-A1 TO A3. W.P.NOs.16939-16950/2014: BETWEEN: 1. M/s.TEACHERS CO-OPERATIVE BANK LTD., NITHYANANDA COMPLEX, MAIN ROAD, MOODBIDRI-574 227, (REPRESENTED BY ITS MANAGER 26 MRS.S.USHA AGED ABOUT 56 YEARS, D/O SRI.A.P.NATH) 2. SRI SAMPATHRATHNA RAO S S/O.SUNDAR

M/S NEW MEDIA COMPANY vs. UNION OF INDIA

Bench: The Hon’Ble Mr.Justice Aravind Kumar

U/S 200[3] OF PROVISO TO SUB SECTION [3] OF SECTION 206C OF THE INCOME TAX ACT 1961, VIDE ANNEXURES-A1 TO A3. W.P.NOs.16939-16950/2014: BETWEEN: 1. M/s.TEACHERS CO-OPERATIVE BANK LTD., NITHYANANDA COMPLEX, MAIN ROAD, MOODBIDRI-574 227, (REPRESENTED BY ITS MANAGER 26 MRS.S.USHA AGED ABOUT 56 YEARS, D/O SRI.A.P.NATH) 2. SRI SAMPATHRATHNA RAO S S/O.SUNDAR

M/S TEE ENN ENTERPRISES vs. UNION OF INDIA

Bench: The Hon’Ble Mr.Justice Aravind Kumar

U/S 200[3] OF PROVISO TO SUB SECTION [3] OF SECTION 206C OF THE INCOME TAX ACT 1961, VIDE ANNEXURES-A1 TO A3. W.P.NOs.16939-16950/2014: BETWEEN: 1. M/s.TEACHERS CO-OPERATIVE BANK LTD., NITHYANANDA COMPLEX, MAIN ROAD, MOODBIDRI-574 227, (REPRESENTED BY ITS MANAGER 26 MRS.S.USHA AGED ABOUT 56 YEARS, D/O SRI.A.P.NATH) 2. SRI SAMPATHRATHNA RAO S S/O.SUNDAR

M/S HOTEL FISHLAND vs. UNION OF INDIA

Bench: The Hon’Ble Mr.Justice Aravind Kumar

U/S 200[3] OF PROVISO TO SUB SECTION [3] OF SECTION 206C OF THE INCOME TAX ACT 1961, VIDE ANNEXURES-A1 TO A3. W.P.NOs.16939-16950/2014: BETWEEN: 1. M/s.TEACHERS CO-OPERATIVE BANK LTD., NITHYANANDA COMPLEX, MAIN ROAD, MOODBIDRI-574 227, (REPRESENTED BY ITS MANAGER 26 MRS.S.USHA AGED ABOUT 56 YEARS, D/O SRI.A.P.NATH) 2. SRI SAMPATHRATHNA RAO S S/O.SUNDAR