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

Of the Department's clouded interpretation of the Centum

Bench: ANAND BYRAREDDY

ii) and (iv) of the Statement of Object and Reasons to the Act. The said clauses state that the KVAT Act provides for the “removing of cascading effect” by 18 allowing “set off of all tax paid at earlier points in respect of goods sold against the tax payable, defined as “output tax”, at any point, the set off scheme

KAVERI PLASTO CONTAINERS PVT LTD vs. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA

Of the Department's clouded interpretation of the Centum

Bench: ANAND BYRAREDDY

ii) and (iv) of the Statement of Object and Reasons to the Act. The said clauses state that the KVAT Act provides for the “removing of cascading effect” by 18 allowing “set off of all tax paid at earlier points in respect of goods sold against the tax payable, defined as “output tax”, at any point, the set off scheme

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

Of the Department's clouded interpretation of the Centum

Bench: ANAND BYRAREDDY

ii) and (iv) of the Statement of Object and Reasons to the Act. The said clauses state that the KVAT Act provides for the “removing of cascading effect” by 18 allowing “set off of all tax paid at earlier points in respect of goods sold against the tax payable, defined as “output tax”, at any point, the set off scheme

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

Of the Department's clouded interpretation of the Centum

Bench: ANAND BYRAREDDY

ii) and (iv) of the Statement of Object and Reasons to the Act. The said clauses state that the KVAT Act provides for the “removing of cascading effect” by 18 allowing “set off of all tax paid at earlier points in respect of goods sold against the tax payable, defined as “output tax”, at any point, the set off scheme

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

Of the Department's clouded interpretation of the Centum

Bench: ANAND BYRAREDDY

ii) and (iv) of the Statement of Object and Reasons to the Act. The said clauses state that the KVAT Act provides for the “removing of cascading effect” by 18 allowing “set off of all tax paid at earlier points in respect of goods sold against the tax payable, defined as “output tax”, at any point, the set off scheme

ACE DESIGNERS LIMITED vs. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA

Of the Department's clouded interpretation of the Centum

Bench: ANAND BYRAREDDY

ii) and (iv) of the Statement of Object and Reasons to the Act. The said clauses state that the KVAT Act provides for the “removing of cascading effect” by 18 allowing “set off of all tax paid at earlier points in respect of goods sold against the tax payable, defined as “output tax”, at any point, the set off scheme

DEPA INDIA PRIVATE LTD. vs. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA

Of the Department's clouded interpretation of the Centum

Bench: ANAND BYRAREDDY

ii) and (iv) of the Statement of Object and Reasons to the Act. The said clauses state that the KVAT Act provides for the “removing of cascading effect” by 18 allowing “set off of all tax paid at earlier points in respect of goods sold against the tax payable, defined as “output tax”, at any point, the set off scheme

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

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

II, 6TH FLOOR, VANIJYA THERIGE KARYALAYA - 1, GANDHINAGAR, BENGALURU - 560009 2 . DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF COMMERCIAL TAXES, AUDIT - 4.5, DVO – 4, ROOM No.204, 2ND FLOOR, VTK - 2, KORAMANGALA BANGALORE - 560047 R - 2 - 3 . STATE OF KARNATAKA DEPARTMENT OF FINANCE BY ITS SECRETARY VIDHANA SOUDHA AMBEDKAR VEEDHI BANGALORE – 560001 …RESPONDENTS [BY SRI T.K.VEDAMURTHY, AGA.] THESE WRIT PETITIONS ARE FILED UNDER ARTICLES

MR. JITENDRA VIRWANI vs. JOINT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX

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

14. Sri. K.V. Aravind relies upon the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Commissioner of Central Excise, Haldia v. M/s Krishna Wax [P] ltd7, a decision rendered in the context of Section 11A of the Central Excise Act, 1944, to bolster his submission that the provisions of Section 10 of the BM Act cannot be construed as contemplating

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:

10 of three months for giving effect to the orders passed under any of the provisions i.e., Ss.250, 254, 260, 262, 263 or 264 of the Act by the Assessing Officer; however, an exception is carved out in cases where a fresh assessment/re-assessment is contemplated; the provisions of section 153(5) and section 244A(1A) employ the expression "wholly

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

ii) The requirement of conducting any enquiry, if required, with the prior approval of specified authority under section 148A(a) is hereby dispensed with as a one-time measure vis-à-vis those notices which have been issued under section 148 of the unamended Act from 01.04.2021 till date, including those which have been quashed by the High Courts. Even

COMMISSIONER OF INCOME vs. M/S C RAMAIAH REDDY

In the result, we do not find any merit in the appeal

Bench: ALOK ARADHE,M.NAGAPRASANNA

10 of Section 147 and Section 148 of the Act and whether non issuance of the notice under Section 143(2) of the Act would invalidate the assessment. Before proceeding further, it is apposite to take note of the relevant extract of provisions of Section 148(1) and Section 143(2) of the Act, which are reproduced below

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

Bench: CHIEF JUSTICE,C M JOSHI

ii) Assessments and reassessments pending on the date of the search shall abate. The total income for such AYs will have to be computed by the AOs as a fresh exercise. (iii) The AO will exercise normal assessment powers in respect of the six years previous to the relevant AY in which the search takes place

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

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