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

natural justice is offended. On the basis of such proceedings, no penalty could be imposed to the assessee. (s) Taking up of penalty proceedings on one limb and finding the assessee guilty of another limb is bad in law. (t) The penalty proceedings are distinct from the assessment proceedings. The proceedings for imposition of penalty though emanate from proceedings

M/S TELEKOM MALAYSIA BERHAD vs. UNION OF INDIA

Appeal is dismissed

Bench: The Hon'Ble Mr. Justice Ravi Malimath

reassessment order was sought to be challenged before the learned Single Judge of this Court on the ground that the alleged breach of principles of natural justice

THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX GULBARGA vs. M/S MANJUNATHA COTTON AND GINNING FACTORY

The appeals are dismissed

Bench: ARAVIND KUMAR,N.KUMAR

natural justice and cannot be sustained. Thus once the proceedings are initiated on one ground, the penalty should also be imposed on the same ground. Where the basis of the initiation of penalty proceedings is not identical with the ground on which the penalty was imposed, the imposition of penalty is not valid. The validity of the order of penalty

THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX vs. M/S HIMACHAL JOINT VENTURE,

Bench: The Appellate

natural justice and in view of the aforesaid, we are of the opinion that writ petition against the re- assessment order dated 31.01.2014 ought to have been entertained and that dismissal of the writ petition on the ground of availability of 8 alternative remedy was not justified in the facts of the present case. 8. Since

MR. JITENDRA VIRWANI vs. JOINT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX

Bench: The Hon’Ble Mr. Justice B. M. Shyam Prasad

natural justice, you are hereby required to show cause as to why you should not be held as the beneficial owner of the above-mentioned foreign entities and why transactions conducted by the foreign entities are not to be treated as for yours and your family's personal benefits." 17. The petitioner contends that the "jurisdictional fact" must necessarily

UNION OF INDIA vs. DR P K SRIHARI

Bench: P.S.DINESH KUMAR,JAYANT PATEL

justice and therefore the said aspect would hardly assume any importance for consideration of the case of the petitioners. However, the Tribunal has interfered with the order of the disciplinary authority on the ground that the respondent exercised quasi judicial power vested in him and after considering the material on record if the 5 decision taken is not malafide

M/S BHIMA JEWELLERS vs. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF

Bench: The Hon’Ble Mr. Justice H.G.Ramesh W.P.Nos.16525-16544/2012 (T-Res) Between: M/S Bhima Jewellers Represented By Its Managing Partner Sri B.Krishnan Aged About 64 Years No.45/5, Dickenson Road Bangalore-560 042 … Petitioner [By Sri R.V.Prasad, Advocate For M/S Vasan Associates, Advocates) And: 1. The Deputy Commissioner Of Commercial Taxes (Audit-5.2) Dvo-5, Vtk-2, 5Th Floor Koramangala Bangalore-560 047 2. The Commissioner Of Commercial Taxes V.T.K.Builiding Kalidasa Road Gandhinagar Bangalore-560 009 … Respondents (By Sri T.K.Vedamurthy, Gp) These Wp’S Are Filed Under Articles 226 & 227 Of The Constitution Of India, Praying To Quash The Orders Of Re-Assessment Dated 8.5.2012 Passed Under Section 39(2) Of The Act & The Consequential Notices Of Demand, All Dated 8.5.2012 By Respondent-1 Pertaining To The Assessment Periods February 2009 & March 2009, April 2009 To March 2010 & April 2010

reassessment orders W.P.Nos.16525-16544/2012 - 3 - are violative of the principles of natural justice inasmuch as the books of accounts

M/S. VARDHMAN METALS vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER

Bench: The Hon’Ble Mr. Justice Ram Mohan Reddy Writ Petition No.7932/2015 (T-It)

natural justice is palpable since a copy of the statement of person the basis for the notice under Section 148 of the Act, is not made available to the petitioner. 4. Suffice it to state that the proceeding culminating in the reassessment

M/S KOTHARI METALS vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER

Bench: The Hon'Ble Mr. Justice Ram Mohan Reddy

natural justice is palpable since a copy of the statement of person the basis for the notice under Section 148 of the Act, is not made available to the petitioner. 4. Suffice it to state that the proceeding culminating in the reassessment

AMITH BETHALA (HUF) vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER

Bench: The Hon'Ble Mr. Justice Ram Mohan Reddy

natural justice is palpable since a copy of the statement of person the basis for the notice under Section 148 of the Act, is not made available to the petitioner. 4. Suffice it to state that the proceeding culminating in the reassessment

MS. SEEMA SIBBAL vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX

Bench: The Hon'Ble Mr. Justice Ram Mohan Reddy

natural justice is palpable since a copy of the statement of person the basis for the notice under Section 148 of the Act, is not made available to the petitioner. 4. Suffice it to state that the proceeding culminating in the reassessment

MR SUNIL H ASHAR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER

Bench: The Hon'Ble Mr. Justice Ram Mohan Reddy

natural justice is palpable since a copy of the statement of person the basis for the notice under Section 148 of the Act, is not made available to the petitioners. 4. Suffice it to state that the proceedings culminating in the reassessment

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

Bench: K.SOMASHEKAR,UMESH M ADIGA

natural justice. 13. Further in paragraph 7 of the order dated 25.08.2014 in the assessment of long term capital gains Rs.5,25,000/-, the Assessing Officer has brought on record that seized material marked as ‘RB/1’, found from the premises of Sri K.Raghavacharyulu was sale agreement dated 26.12.2005 for land at Sy.No.25A, Ganesh Nagar, measuring 4200 sq.ft

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

Bench: K.SOMASHEKAR,UMESH M ADIGA

natural justice. 14. Further, at para No.7 of the order dated 25.08.2014 related to capital gains, it is stated as assessment of long term capital gains Rs.5,25,000/-, the Assessing Officer has brought on record that seized material marked as ‘RB/1’, found from the premises of Sri K.Raghavacharyulu was sale agreement dated 26.12.2005 for land at Sy.No.25A, Ganesh

SHRI V SELVARAJ vs. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME

The appeal is allowed

Bench: SATISH CHANDRA SHARMA,R. NATARAJ

natural justice on the facts and circumstances of the case?" 9. The undisputed facts of the case reveal that the appellant is a mining contractor and was operating the mines belonging to one Balaji Produce Company Group, a registered partnership firm, over the mines taken on lease from the Government of Karnataka. The appellant was excavating the mines for over

M/S SILICON ESTATES vs. THE ADDITIONAL COMMISSIONER OF

In the result, the impugned orders of the

Bench: B.V.NAGARATHNA,J.M.KHAZI

JUSTICE J.M.KHAZI S.T.A. No.4/2020 C/W S.T.A. No.5/2020, S.T.A. No.6/2020, S.T.A. No.7/2020 IN S.T.A. No.4/2020 BETWEEN: M/S. SILICON ESTATES, NO.14, H.M. GENEVA HOUSE, CUNNINGHAM ROAD, BENGALURU - 560 052, REPRESENTED BY ITS MANAGING PARTNER SRI. H.J. SIWANI. ... APPELLANT (BY SRI SANDEEP HUILGOL, ADVOCATE) AND: THE ADDITIONAL COMMISSIONER OF COMMERCIAL TAXES, ZONE-II, 6TH FLOOR, VTK-1, GANDHINAGAR, BENGALURU - 560 009. ... RESPONDENT

DEVAS MULTIMEDIA PRIVATE LIMITED vs. THE PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX

Bench: The Hon’Ble Mr.Justice P.B. Bajanthri Writ Petition No.11618 Of 2016 (T-It) Between:

justice and equity. 2. Petitioner is stated to have engaged in the business of providing internet based multimedia and interactive data services to hand-held mobile terminals through a portfolio of services including streaming of video, audio and data as well as web access, infotainment and social applications. It is stated that it was a unique project which is multifarious

PR. COMMISSIONER OF vs. M/S SASKEN

Bench: S.SUJATHA,VINEET KOTHARI

natural justice and in view of the aforesaid, we are of the opinion that writ petition against the re- assessment order dated 31.01.2014 ought to have been entertained and that dismissal of the writ petition on the ground of availability of alternative remedy was not justified in the facts of the present case.” 5. Similarly, this Bench in the case