SHRI N G CHANDRA REDDY (HUF) vs. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF

The appeal is disposed of in the above terms

Bench: S.G.PANDIT,K. V. ARAVIND

JUSTICE K. V ARAVIND) This appeal is filed by the assessee challenging the order passed in ITA No.390/Bang/2015 dated 20.07.2016 for the Assessment Year 2005–06. 2. The above appeal is admitted to consider the following substantial questions of law: "35. Whether the Tribunal was justified in law in holding that there has been transfer within the meaning of section

HINDUSTAN AERONAUTICS vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER

In the result, the appeal is disposed of

Bench: ALOK ARADHE,H.T. NARENDRA PRASAD

JUSTICE AND EQUITY. THIS I.T.A. COMING ON FOR HEARING, THIS DAY, ALOK ARADHE J., DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: JUDGMENT This appeal under Section 260-A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’, for short) has been filed by the assessee. The subject matter of the appeal pertains to the Assessment Year 2005-06. The appeal

THE PR. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIT (A) vs. M/S. NAVODAYA GRAMA VIKAS CHARITABLE TRUST

Appeal is dismissed; and

Bench: P.S.DINESH KUMAR,RAMACHANDRA D. HUDDAR

JUSTICE RAMACHANDRA D. HUDDAR INCOME TAX APPEAL NO.146 OF 2021 BETWEEN: 1. THE PR. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX CIT (A) CENTRAL CIRCLE, C.R.BUILDING QUEEN’S ROAD, BENGALURU-560 001 2. THE ASST. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX EXEMPTIONS, CIRCLE-1 (PRESENT ADDRESS) DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1 C.R. BUILDING, ATTAVARA MANGALURU-575 001 …APPELLANTS (BY SHRI. M. DILIP, STANDING COUNSEL FOR SHRI

M/S KARNATAKA STATE INDUSTRIAL AND INFRASTRUCTURE DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION LTD vs. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX

The appeal is allowed and the impugned

Bench: SATISH CHANDRA SHARMA,V SRISHANANDA

JUSTICE B M SHYAM PRASAD) The appellant has impugned the orders under Sections 69 and 64 of the Karnataka Value Added Tax Act, 2003 [for short, 'the KVAT Act'] and the details of these impugned orders are as follows: [i] The Rectification Order dated 10.03.2021 in No. ADCOM/ZONE-II/APP-2/SMR/CR- 29/2018-19 passed by the Additional Commissioner of Commercial Taxes [Annexure

PR. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX -2 vs. M/S YESHODA ELECTRICALS

The appeals are dismissed

Bench: S.G.PANDIT,K. V. ARAVIND

JUSTICE K.V. ARAVIND) Heard Sri E.I. Sanmathi, learned Senior Standing Counsel for the appellants-Revenue, and Smt. Krishika Vaishnav, learned counsel for Sri A. Mahesh Chowdhary, respondent- Assessee. 2. These appeals filed by the Revenue are under Section 260A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as the ‘Act’), impugning the common order dated

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

Appeals stand disposed of accordingly

Bench: S.SUJATHA,RAVI V HOSMANI

JUSTICE RAVI V. HOSMANI I.T.A.No.322/2018 c/w I.T.A.No.323/2018, I.T.A.No.324/2018, I.T.A.No.354/2018, I.T.A.No.355/2018, I.T.A.No.380/2018, I.T.A.No.381/2018, I.T.A.No.382/2018, I.T.A.No.383/2018, I.T.A.No.384/2018, I.T.A.No.385/2018, I.T.A.No.197/2021, I.T.A.No.198/2021 & I.T.A.No.199/2021 IN I.T.A.No.322/2018: BETWEEN : 1 . PR. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (CENTRAL), QUEENS ROAD, BANGALORE. 2 . THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2(2), BANGALORE. ...APPELLANTS

PR COMMISSIONER OF vs. M/S GMR HYDERABAD

Appeals stand disposed of accordingly

Bench: S.SUJATHA,RAVI V HOSMANI

JUSTICE RAVI V. HOSMANI I.T.A.No.322/2018 c/w I.T.A.No.323/2018, I.T.A.No.324/2018, I.T.A.No.354/2018, I.T.A.No.355/2018, I.T.A.No.380/2018, I.T.A.No.381/2018, I.T.A.No.382/2018, I.T.A.No.383/2018, I.T.A.No.384/2018, I.T.A.No.385/2018, I.T.A.No.197/2021, I.T.A.No.198/2021 & I.T.A.No.199/2021 IN I.T.A.No.322/2018: BETWEEN : 1 . PR. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (CENTRAL), QUEENS ROAD, BANGALORE. 2 . THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2(2), BANGALORE. ...APPELLANTS

PR COMMISSIONER OF vs. M/S GMR HYDERABAD

Appeals stand disposed of accordingly

Bench: S.SUJATHA,RAVI V HOSMANI

JUSTICE RAVI V. HOSMANI I.T.A.No.322/2018 c/w I.T.A.No.323/2018, I.T.A.No.324/2018, I.T.A.No.354/2018, I.T.A.No.355/2018, I.T.A.No.380/2018, I.T.A.No.381/2018, I.T.A.No.382/2018, I.T.A.No.383/2018, I.T.A.No.384/2018, I.T.A.No.385/2018, I.T.A.No.197/2021, I.T.A.No.198/2021 & I.T.A.No.199/2021 IN I.T.A.No.322/2018: BETWEEN : 1 . PR. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (CENTRAL), QUEENS ROAD, BANGALORE. 2 . THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2(2), BANGALORE. ...APPELLANTS

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

Bench: CHIEF JUSTICE,C M JOSHI

JUSTICE) 1. For the reasons stated in the applications ― I.A.No.1/2025, the same are allowed. The delay of 46 days in filing the above captioned appeals, is condoned. 2. The Revenue have filed the present appeals under Section 260A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 [the Act], impugning a common order dated 08.11.2024 [impugned order], passed by the learned Income

PRL., COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-3 vs. M/S I B C KNOWLEDGE PARK PVT LTD

The appeal is dismissed as the

Bench: V KAMESWAR RAO,S RACHAIAH

JUSTICE V KAMESWAR RAO) The present appeal has been filed challenging the order dated 18.03.2021 passed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (for short ‘ITAT’), whereby the ITAT has decided the two cross appeals filed by the parties herein. 2. The challenge in this appeal by the revenue is in ITA No.327/Bang/2018 for Assessment Year 2007-08, which appeal

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

In the result, the orders passed by the Assessing

Bench: SATISH CHANDRA SHARMA,V SRISHANANDA

JUSTICE ALOK ARADHE AND THE HON’BLE MR.JUSTICE HEMANT CHANDANGOUDAR STRP NO.422 OF 2017 BETWEEN: M/S. DELL INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED (NOW PART OF M/S. DELL INTERNATIONAL SERVICES INDIA PVT. LTD) DIVYASHREE GARDENS GROUND FLOOR, NO.12/01 CHALLAGHATTA VILLAGE VARTHUR HOBLI, BANGALORE-37. ... PETITIONER (BY SRI. SHIVADASS G, SR. COUNSEL FOR SRI. SYED M. PEERAN, ADV.,) AND: THE STATE OF KARNATAKA REPRESENTED

THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX vs. M/S. ASTRA ZENECA PHARMA

In the result, the order passed by the

Bench: ALOK ARADHE,HEMANT CHANDANGOUDAR

JUSTICE AND EQUITY. THESE ITAs COMING ON FOR FINAL HEARING, THIS DAY, ALOK ARADHE J., DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: COMMON JUDGMENT These appeals under Section 260A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’, for short) have been filed by the revenue. The subject matter of I.T.A.No.370/2011 & I.T.A.No.37/2012 pertains to Assessment year 1996-97. Since

THE PR.COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX vs. M/S. YOKOGAWA INDIA LTD

The appeal is dismissed

Bench: S.G.PANDIT,K. V. ARAVIND

JUSTICE K. V. ARAVIND) Heard Sri E.I. Sanmathi, learned Senior Standing Counsel for the appellants, and Sri D.D. Nageswar Rao, learned counsel for the respondent. 2. The Revenue has preferred this appeal under Section 260-A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’), assailing the order dated 11.03.2021 passed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal

THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX vs. M/S HIMALAYA DRUG COMPANY

Bench: S.SUJATHA,RAVI V HOSMANI

JUSTICE RAVI V. HOSMANI I.T.A.No.441/2014 c/w I.T.A.No.509/2014, I.T.A.No.510/2014, I.T.A.No.512/2014, I.T.A.No.513/2014, I.T.A.No.514/2014 & I.T.A.No.515/2014 IN I.T.A.No.441/2014: BETWEEN : M/s HIMALAYA DRUG COMPANY MAKALI, TUMKUR ROAD, BANGALORE-562123, (REP BY ITS CHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICER, Ms. JAYASHREE ULLALL, D/O SRI DAYANANDA ULLAL AGED ABOUT 39 YEARS) ...APPELLANT (BY SRI K.K.CHYTHANYA, ADV.) AND : THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME

M/S. HIMALAYA DRUG COMPANY vs. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX

Bench: S.SUJATHA,RAVI V HOSMANI

JUSTICE RAVI V. HOSMANI I.T.A.No.441/2014 c/w I.T.A.No.509/2014, I.T.A.No.510/2014, I.T.A.No.512/2014, I.T.A.No.513/2014, I.T.A.No.514/2014 & I.T.A.No.515/2014 IN I.T.A.No.441/2014: BETWEEN : M/s HIMALAYA DRUG COMPANY MAKALI, TUMKUR ROAD, BANGALORE-562123, (REP BY ITS CHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICER, Ms. JAYASHREE ULLALL, D/O SRI DAYANANDA ULLAL AGED ABOUT 39 YEARS) ...APPELLANT (BY SRI K.K.CHYTHANYA, ADV.) AND : THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME

THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX vs. M/S HIMALAYA DRUG COMPANY

Bench: S.SUJATHA,RAVI V HOSMANI

JUSTICE RAVI V. HOSMANI I.T.A.No.441/2014 c/w I.T.A.No.509/2014, I.T.A.No.510/2014, I.T.A.No.512/2014, I.T.A.No.513/2014, I.T.A.No.514/2014 & I.T.A.No.515/2014 IN I.T.A.No.441/2014: BETWEEN : M/s HIMALAYA DRUG COMPANY MAKALI, TUMKUR ROAD, BANGALORE-562123, (REP BY ITS CHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICER, Ms. JAYASHREE ULLALL, D/O SRI DAYANANDA ULLAL AGED ABOUT 39 YEARS) ...APPELLANT (BY SRI K.K.CHYTHANYA, ADV.) AND : THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME

THE DIRECTOR OF INCOME TAX vs. THE EXECUTIVE ENGINEER

Bench: ALOK ARADHE,H.T. NARENDRA PRASAD

JUSTICE AND EQUITY. THESE ITAs COMING ON FOR HEARING, THIS DAY, ALOK ARADHE J., DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: COMMON JUDGMENT I.T.A.No.166/2011 under Section 260A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’ for short) has been preferred by the revenue, whereas, I.T.A.No.148/2011 has been preferred by the assessee. Since, both the appeals arise

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

Appeal is allowed

Bench: P.S.DINESH KUMAR,C.M. POONACHA

JUSTICE. THIS ITA COMING ON FOR HEARING, THIS DAY P.S. DINESH KUMAR J., DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: JUDGMENT This appeal by the assessee has been admitted to consider the following questions of law: 1. Whether the Tribunal was justified in law in not adjudicating the grounds on reopening raised by the appellant on the facts and circumstances of the case