THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX vs. M/S. IBC KNOWLEDGE PARK PVT. LTD.,

In the result, the appeals filed by the Revenue

Bench: B.V.NAGARATHNA,JAYANT PATEL

house property. Hence, expenses in that regard did not arise. 29. Per contra, assessee’s counsel supported the finding of the Tribunal by contending that the assessee had earned income of Rs.78.25 lakh as construction management fee. It had set up the interiors of M/s.Accenture Services Pvt. Ltd., and the aforesaid disputed amount was the expenses incurred in the process

S N SIMHA vs. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA

In the result there is no merit in this writ petition and the

Bench: The Hon’Ble Mr. Justice Anand Byrareddy Writ Petition No. 24840 Of 2012 (La-Kiadb) Between: 1. S.N.Simha, Aged About 73 Years, Son Of Late G.R.Swamy, 2. S.N.Yamuna Devi, Wife Of Sri. S.N.Simha, Aged About 66 Years, Both Are Proprietors M/S. Viswabandhu Press & Sree Bharathi Cottage Industries Company, No.16, 1St Cross, Cottonpet, Bangalore – 560 053. …Petitioners (By Shri. S.P.Shankar, Senior Advocate For Shri. K.L.Sreenivas, Advocate For M/S. K.N.L. Associates) And: 1. The State Of Karnataka, Represented By Its Secretary, Commerce & Industries

reassessed the properties to tax. And that there are several houses that have been constructed in the area. It is also

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

Bench: B.V.NAGARATHNA,JAYANT PATEL

house property’. The return of income was filed by the assessee for A.Y.2007-08 on 24.10.07 declaring total income of Rs.36,04,060 comoprising of income from property of Rs.33,88,276 and income from business of Rs.2, 15, 779. The return was processed u/s.143(1) of the Act on 31.10.2008. There was a survey u/s.133A of the Act conducted

THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-III vs. SMT.KAMAKSHI DEVI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is

Bench: S.SUJATHA,VINEET KOTHARI

House Property omitted to be included." However, the tribunal in paragraph 13 has held as under: We have considered the rival submissions. From a perusal of the reasons recorded by the AO before issuing notice under Section 148 of the Act, it is clear that the AO ha not, in the reasons recorded, made an allegation that income chargeable

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

VASANT S/O. MANESHWAR SANU vs. NINGAPPA S/O. MAHADEVAPPA MALAGI

In the result, we come to the conclusion that the

Bench: SREENIVAS HARISH KUMAR,P.N.DESAI

reassessed. PW1 is the plaintiff himself. It is not necessary to reiterate whatever he has stated in the affidavit filed in lieu of examination in chief as it is nothing but replica of the plaint. But one thing that may be referred to here is that he gave evidence not only on his behalf but also on behalf

SHOBHA W/O SHRIKANTRAO vs. RAGHAVENDRA RAMACHANDRA INNANJE

The appeal is allowed

Bench: The Hon’Ble Mrs.Justice M.G.Uma

reassessing or re-appreciating the evidence. Learned Senior Counsel contended that position of law is made very clear that the arbitral award can be challenged only under the grounds mentioned under Section 34(2) of the Act. 3 (2010) 1 SCC 409 4 (2015) 3 SCC 49 5 (2012) 1 SCC 594 - 12 - 14. Learned Senior Counsel also placed reliance

SRI N GOVINDARAJU vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER

Appeal stands disposed of

Bench: S.SUJATHA,VINEET SARAN

house property, transport business, capital gains and other sources. For the assessment year 2004-05, he 3 filed his Income Tax return on 16.12.2004 declaring an income of Rs.4,82,330/- and agriculture income of Rs.1,62,470/-. Such return was first processed under section 143(1) of the Act and accepted on 2.3.2005. Thereafter, notice under Section

H A VISWANATHA RAO vs. SRI H N SUBBANNA

Appeal is hereby dismissed

Bench: The Hon’Ble Mr.Justice Aravind Kumar

Housing Society in favour of DW-2, Smt.B.S.Jayamma which establishes the marital status of DW-2 and contents thereof would disclose that DW-2 was the wife of DW-1 and not considering this document in proper perspective has resulted in great injustice being caused to plaintiff and as such he seeks 26 for setting aside Judgment and Decree passed

THE PR. COMMISIONER INCOME TAX vs. M/S. GMR INFRASTRUCTURE LTD

Appeals stand disposed of accordingly

Bench: S.SUJATHA,RAVI V HOSMANI

Housing was also a case where some material was unearthed during the search. Further, the High Court was clear that the addition to the income already disclosed would have to be based on some material unearthed during the search. This is clear from the observation in para 9 of the decision to the effect: "The AO is empowered to reopen

PR COMMISSIONER OF vs. M/S GMR HYDERABAD

Appeals stand disposed of accordingly

Bench: S.SUJATHA,RAVI V HOSMANI

Housing was also a case where some material was unearthed during the search. Further, the High Court was clear that the addition to the income already disclosed would have to be based on some material unearthed during the search. This is clear from the observation in para 9 of the decision to the effect: "The AO is empowered to reopen

THE PR. COMMISIONER OF INCOME TAX vs. M/S. GMR INFRASTRUCTURE LTD

Appeals stand disposed of accordingly

Bench: S.SUJATHA,RAVI V HOSMANI

Housing was also a case where some material was unearthed during the search. Further, the High Court was clear that the addition to the income already disclosed would have to be based on some material unearthed during the search. This is clear from the observation in para 9 of the decision to the effect: "The AO is empowered to reopen

PR COMMISSIONER OF vs. M/S GMR HYDERABAD

Appeals stand disposed of accordingly

Bench: S.SUJATHA,RAVI V HOSMANI

Housing was also a case where some material was unearthed during the search. Further, the High Court was clear that the addition to the income already disclosed would have to be based on some material unearthed during the search. This is clear from the observation in para 9 of the decision to the effect: "The AO is empowered to reopen

PR COMMISSIONER OF vs. M/S GMR HYDERABAD

Appeals stand disposed of accordingly

Bench: S.SUJATHA,RAVI V HOSMANI

Housing was also a case where some material was unearthed during the search. Further, the High Court was clear that the addition to the income already disclosed would have to be based on some material unearthed during the search. This is clear from the observation in para 9 of the decision to the effect: "The AO is empowered to reopen

PR COMMISSIONER OF vs. M/S GMR HYDERABAD

Appeals stand disposed of accordingly

Bench: S.SUJATHA,RAVI V HOSMANI

Housing was also a case where some material was unearthed during the search. Further, the High Court was clear that the addition to the income already disclosed would have to be based on some material unearthed during the search. This is clear from the observation in para 9 of the decision to the effect: "The AO is empowered to reopen

PR. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (CENTRAL) vs. M/S. DELHI INTERNATIONAL AIRPORT PVT. LTD.,

Appeals stand disposed of accordingly

Bench: S.SUJATHA,RAVI V HOSMANI

Housing was also a case where some material was unearthed during the search. Further, the High Court was clear that the addition to the income already disclosed would have to be based on some material unearthed during the search. This is clear from the observation in para 9 of the decision to the effect: "The AO is empowered to reopen

THE PR. COMMISIONER OF INCOME TAX vs. M/S. GMR INFRASTRUCTURE LTD

Appeals stand disposed of accordingly

Bench: S.SUJATHA,RAVI V HOSMANI

Housing was also a case where some material was unearthed during the search. Further, the High Court was clear that the addition to the income already disclosed would have to be based on some material unearthed during the search. This is clear from the observation in para 9 of the decision to the effect: "The AO is empowered to reopen

PR COMMISSIONER OF vs. M/S GMR HYDERABAD

Appeals stand disposed of accordingly

Bench: S.SUJATHA,RAVI V HOSMANI

Housing was also a case where some material was unearthed during the search. Further, the High Court was clear that the addition to the income already disclosed would have to be based on some material unearthed during the search. This is clear from the observation in para 9 of the decision to the effect: "The AO is empowered to reopen