M/S. HINDUSTAN COCA COLA vs. STATE OF KARNATAKA

Of the Department's clouded interpretation of the Centum

Bench: ANAND BYRAREDDY

section 10(3) does not, in any way, suggest that input tax credit must be availed in the return filed for the month in which the selling dealer raises his invoice. Despite the same, relying on the judgment in Centum Industries, the Revenue started passing reassessment

M/S INDIA MOTOR PARTS & ACCESSORIES LTD vs. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF

Of the Department's clouded interpretation of the Centum

Bench: ANAND BYRAREDDY

section 10(3) does not, in any way, suggest that input tax credit must be availed in the return filed for the month in which the selling dealer raises his invoice. Despite the same, relying on the judgment in Centum Industries, the Revenue started passing reassessment

ACE DESIGNERS LIMITED vs. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA

Of the Department's clouded interpretation of the Centum

Bench: ANAND BYRAREDDY

section 10(3) does not, in any way, suggest that input tax credit must be availed in the return filed for the month in which the selling dealer raises his invoice. Despite the same, relying on the judgment in Centum Industries, the Revenue started passing reassessment

SONAL APPAREL PRIVATE LTD., vs. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA

Of the Department's clouded interpretation of the Centum

Bench: ANAND BYRAREDDY

section 10(3) does not, in any way, suggest that input tax credit must be availed in the return filed for the month in which the selling dealer raises his invoice. Despite the same, relying on the judgment in Centum Industries, the Revenue started passing reassessment

INGRAM MICRO INDIA PVT. LTD. vs. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA

Of the Department's clouded interpretation of the Centum

Bench: ANAND BYRAREDDY

section 10(3) does not, in any way, suggest that input tax credit must be availed in the return filed for the month in which the selling dealer raises his invoice. Despite the same, relying on the judgment in Centum Industries, the Revenue started passing reassessment

DEPA INDIA PRIVATE LTD. vs. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA

Of the Department's clouded interpretation of the Centum

Bench: ANAND BYRAREDDY

section 10(3) does not, in any way, suggest that input tax credit must be availed in the return filed for the month in which the selling dealer raises his invoice. Despite the same, relying on the judgment in Centum Industries, the Revenue started passing reassessment

INGRAM MICRO INDIA PVT.LTD. vs. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA

Of the Department's clouded interpretation of the Centum

Bench: ANAND BYRAREDDY

section 10(3) does not, in any way, suggest that input tax credit must be availed in the return filed for the month in which the selling dealer raises his invoice. Despite the same, relying on the judgment in Centum Industries, the Revenue started passing reassessment

M/S ANS CONSTRUCTIONS LTD vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF COMMERCIAL

Bench: The Hon’Ble Mrs.Justice S.Sujatha

10(3) OF THE KVAT ACT IN SUCH A MANNER SO AS TO PREMIT AVAILMENT OF INPUT TAX CREDIT BASED ON THE ANNUAL AUDITED STATEMENT OF ACCOUNTS IN FORM VAT 240 IRRESPECTIVE OF THE CLAIM BEING MADE IN THE RETURNS OF TURNOVERB FILED UNDER SECTION 35 OF THE KVAT ACT, IN SO FAR AS THE PETITIONER IS CONCERNED. THESE PETITIONS

MR. JITENDRA VIRWANI vs. JOINT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX

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

Section 10 of the BM Act read as under: "10. Assessment - (1) For the purposes of making an assessment or reassessment

WIPRO LIMITED vs. THE JOINT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX

Bench: The Hon’Ble Mr. Justice Krishna S.Dixit Writ Petition No.20040/2019 (T-It) Between:

reassessment in terms of Section 153(2); it would simply mean that the orders of the higher forum are to be applied & followed by the assessing officer; . it may be borne in mind that longer time limits are provided in Section 153(3) & second proviso to Section 153(5) because it may entail doing the entire process once over

AZIM PREMJI TRUSTEE COMPANY PVT LTD vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX

In the result, I pass the following:-

Bench: The Hon'Ble Mr.Justice S.R.Krishna Kumar

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 recomputed 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

SMT. TARA N. A vs. SRI. SYED JAKIR

Bench: B.V.NAGARATHNA,ASHOK G.NIJAGANNAVAR

10(2)(d) and section 2(41) of the Act i.e. light motor vehicle. (iv) The effect of amendment of Form 4 by insertion of “transport vehicle” is related only to the categories which were substituted in the year 1994 and the procedure to obtain driving licence for transport vehicle of class of “light motor vehicle” continues

THE PR COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX vs. M/S ATRIA WIND (KADAMBUR) PVT LTD

Bench: CHIEF JUSTICE,C M JOSHI

reassessment, if any, relating to the six assessment years referred to in the sub-section pending on the date of initiation of search under Section 132 or requisition under Section 132-A, as the case may be, shall abate. Sub-section (2) of - 10

PR COMMISSIONER OF vs. M/S GMR HYDERABAD

Appeals stand disposed of accordingly

Bench: S.SUJATHA,RAVI V HOSMANI

10. Section 153A of the Act starts with a non obstante clause. The fetters imposed upon the Assessing Officer by the strict procedure to assume jurisdiction to reopen the assessment under Sections 147 and 148, have been removed by the non obstante clause with which sub section (1) of Section 153A opens. The time-limit within which the notice under

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

Appeals stand disposed of accordingly

Bench: S.SUJATHA,RAVI V HOSMANI

10. Section 153A of the Act starts with a non obstante clause. The fetters imposed upon the Assessing Officer by the strict procedure to assume jurisdiction to reopen the assessment under Sections 147 and 148, have been removed by the non obstante clause with which sub section (1) of Section 153A opens. The time-limit within which the notice under

PR COMMISSIONER OF vs. M/S GMR HYDERABAD

Appeals stand disposed of accordingly

Bench: S.SUJATHA,RAVI V HOSMANI

10. Section 153A of the Act starts with a non obstante clause. The fetters imposed upon the Assessing Officer by the strict procedure to assume jurisdiction to reopen the assessment under Sections 147 and 148, have been removed by the non obstante clause with which sub section (1) of Section 153A opens. The time-limit within which the notice under

PR COMMISSIONER OF vs. M/S GMR HYDERABAD

Appeals stand disposed of accordingly

Bench: S.SUJATHA,RAVI V HOSMANI

10. Section 153A of the Act starts with a non obstante clause. The fetters imposed upon the Assessing Officer by the strict procedure to assume jurisdiction to reopen the assessment under Sections 147 and 148, have been removed by the non obstante clause with which sub section (1) of Section 153A opens. The time-limit within which the notice under

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

Appeals stand disposed of accordingly

Bench: S.SUJATHA,RAVI V HOSMANI

10. Section 153A of the Act starts with a non obstante clause. The fetters imposed upon the Assessing Officer by the strict procedure to assume jurisdiction to reopen the assessment under Sections 147 and 148, have been removed by the non obstante clause with which sub section (1) of Section 153A opens. The time-limit within which the notice under