SHRI. PRASANNA V GHOTAGE, vs. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF

Bench: The Hon’Ble Mr. Justice G.Narendar Writ Petition No.109810/2016 (T-It) & Writ Petition No.109811/2016 (T-It)

reassessment is beyond the period of four years also is not - 7 - sustainable. A reading of the first proviso to Section 147 of the Act falsifies the contention. It clearly exempts

THE PR. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX vs. M/S BIOPLUS LIFE SCIENCES PVT LTD

In the result, I pass the following:-

Bench: The Hon'Ble Mr.Justice S.R.Krishna Kumar Writ Petition No.1014 Of 2017 (T-Kst) Between: M/S. Rainbow Colour Lab, No.13, D.J.C. Complex, Hudson Circle, Bengaluru – 560 027. A Partnership Firm Represented By Its Partner Sri.G.K.Madan Mohan, Aged About 62 Years, S/O Sri.G.V.Krishna Reddy. ...Petitioner (By Sri. M.Thirumalesh, Advocate ) And: 1. State Of Karnataka

exemptions have been wrongly allowed in respect thereof, the assessing authority may, notwithstanding the fact that the whole or part of such escaped turnover was already before the said authority at the time of the original assessment or reassessment

M/S KHODAY INDIA LTD vs. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX

In the result, the orders passed by the Assessing

Bench: ALOK ARADHE,HEMANT CHANDANGOUDAR

exempt income under Section 10(2A) of the Act from the partnership as the firm had incurred loss. It is also submitted that the 6 assessee had interest free funds in excess of amounts of investments and therefore, disallowance under Section 14A of the Act was not called for. It is also urged that for the Assessment Years

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

Bench: K.SOMASHEKAR,UMESH M ADIGA

reassessment proceedings. Such an interpretation would be reading that judgment totally out of context in which the questions arose for decision in that case. It is neither desirable nor permissible to pick out a word or a sentence from the judgment of this Court, divorced from the context of the question under consideration and treat it to be the complete

M/S MYSORE POLYMERS & RUBBER PRODUCTS LTD vs. THE COMMISSIONER OF COMMERCIAL TAXES

In the result, writ appeal No

Bench: D.V.SHYLENDRA KUMAR,B.S.INDRAKALA

reassessment order was wrong and be quashed. 8. Before the learned Single Judge, the writ petition was resisted by the State by filing statement of objections. It was sought to be contended that the caption given to the Section cannot be a decisive factor, the liability in a taxing provision cannot be inferred by merely looking at the heading

THE SRI KANNIKAPARAMESWARI CO OP BANK LIMITED vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER

The appeal stands allowed

Bench: S.SUJATHA,HANCHATE SANJEEVKUMAR

exempt u/s 80P of the Act for the following reasons: a) The assessee Bank is constituted under RRBS Act, 1976; b) As per sec. 18 of the RRBS Act, the Banks can carry all business specified in clause (b) of sec.5 and sub-sec.(1) of sec.6 of the Banking Regulation Act; c) As per Sub-sec.(1) of sec.6

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

Bench: K.SOMASHEKAR,UMESH M ADIGA

exemption notification or exemption clause – strict interpretation of, and , burden of proving applicability of exemption – benefit of ambiguity in case of an exemption 77 notification or exemption clause – interpretation of, in favour the revenue/state, as exemptions from taxation have a tendency to increase the burden on the unexempted class of taxpayers – general principle that in case of ambiguity a taxing

THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX vs. M/S CHAITANYA PROPERTIES PVT LTD.,

The appeal is dismissed

Bench: S.SUJATHA,JAYANT PATEL

reassess such income and also any other income chargeable to tax which has escaped assessment and which comes to his notice subsequently in the course of the proceedings under this section, or recompute the loss or the depreciation allowance or any other allowance, as the case may be, for the assessment year concerned (hereafter in this section and in sections

COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS) vs. M/S POST & BSNL EMPLOYEES

The appeal is dismissed

Bench: N.KUMAR,RATHNAKALA

reassess such income and also any other income chargeable to tax which has escaped assessment and which comes to his notice subsequently in the course of the proceedings under this section, or recompute the loss or the depreciation allowance or any other allowance, as the case may be, for the assessment year concerned (hereafter in this section and in sections

THE PR.COMMISSIONER OF vs. M/S MAHAVEER CALYX

In the result, the orders passed by the Assessing

Bench: SATISH CHANDRA SHARMA,V SRISHANANDA

exemption under Section 5(2) of the Act. It is contended that the petitioner, after execution of intercompany purchase agreement on 06.08.2000, had subjected itself to levy of tax till the advance ruling of ACAR till 31.03.2006 and in other States except Harayana and Karnataka, is paying tax. It is also urged that since the proceeding for re-assessment were

PR.COMMISSIONER OF INCOMETAX-2 vs. M/S.EYGBS (INDIA) PVT LTD

Bench: CHIEF JUSTICE,C M JOSHI

exemption under Section 10-AA of the Act on the ground that the same was occasioned by TP adjustment. The said disallowance was founded on the proviso to Section 92C(4) of the Act. - 12 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:36360-DB ITA No. 107 of 2025 C/W ITA No. 106 of 2025 17. It is material to note that

P VIKRAM MAIYA vs. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX

Accordingly, writ petition is allowed

Bench: S.SUJATHA

exemptions against the receipt of consideration of Rs.4,00,00,000/- in respect of transfer of part of the rights in the brand name “MTR”. 3. The said return of income was selected for scrutiny and order dated 31.12.2010 under Section 143[3] of the Act was passed accepting the income returned. Survey proceedings were conducted by the Department

P ARVIND MAIYA vs. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX

Accordingly, writ petition is allowed

Bench: S.SUJATHA

exemptions against the receipt of consideration of Rs.4,00,00,000/- in respect of transfer of part of the rights in the brand name “MTR”. 3. The said return of income was selected for scrutiny and order dated 31.12.2010 under Section 143[3] of the Act was passed accepting the income returned. Survey proceedings were conducted by the Department

M/S SANKHLA POLYMERS (P) LTD vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD-12(2)

In the result, the appeal relating to the assessment

Bench: D.V.SHYLENDRA KUMAR,B.SREENIVASE GOWDA

reassessing the income for the assessment year 2002-03 by issue of notice under Section 148 of the Act and tax liability had been determined as per the amendment to Section 115JB. 5 7. For the subsequent two assessment years, the assessee being fully aware of the provisions of this Section and having filed returns, they had been assessed

PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX vs. MESSERS THE ARCHDIOCESAN BOARD OF

Bench: P.S.DINESH KUMAR,G BASAVARAJA

EXEMPTIONS) UNITY BUILDING ANNEXE MISSION ROAD BENGALURU …APPELLANTS (BY SRI. SANMATHI E I., STANDING COUNSEL) AND: 1. MESSERS THE ARCHDIOCESAN BOARD OF EDUCATION ARCHBISOP'S HOUSE NO.75, MILLERS ROAD BENSON TOWN, BANGALORE-560 046. …RESPONDENT (BY SRI. SUDHEEDRA B R., ADVOCATE) Digitally signed by RAMYA D Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - ITA No. 50 of 2020 THIS INCOME

M/S MANYATA PROMOTERS PVT LTD vs. STATE OF KARNATAKA

In the result, the writ petition is rejected

Bench: The Hon’Ble Mr.Justice L Narayana Swamy Writ Petition No.56279 Of 2015 (Lb-Bbmp) Between: M/S.Manyata Promoters Pvt. Ltd., A Company Incorporated Under The Companies Act, 1956 & Having Its Office At First Floor, Classic Court No.9/1, Richmond Road, Bangalore 560 025 Represented By Its Authorized Signatory, Mr.B S Mohan.

reassess or demand the difference of actual Property Tax payable. 4. I have heard the learned senior counsel for the respective counsel on record and perused the entire case papers. 5. On the basis of the contentions and counter contentions raised by the parties, the points that arise for consideration are: (i) Whether the petitioner is liable

HEWLETT PACKARD FINANCIAL SERVICES INDIA PRIVATE vs. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA

Bench: S.SUJATHA,JAYANT PATEL

exemption clause as envisaged u/s. 5(2) of the Act. 19. Even by following the minority opinion of K.Gopinathan Nair vs. State of Kerala/Cashew Corporation of India vs. State of Karnataka reported together in [1997] 105 STC 580 (SC) (three members bench), the transactions effected by the appellant can not be construed as an integrated transaction. The dissenting opinion

ABB INDIA LTD vs. JOINT COMMISSIONER OF

Bench: P.S.DINESH KUMAR,M G UMA

exemption of interest free tax bonds under Section 10(23G). When the assessment was I.T.A No.71/2017 C/W I.T.A No.785/2017 9 reopened, the AO issued notice with regard to the deduction of Rs.5,27,67,000/- and Rs.79,12,000/- under Section 40(a) of the Act. Assessee has submitted its detailed reply on October 5, 2011. The AO has noticed