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

Of the Department's clouded interpretation of the Centum

Bench: ANAND BYRAREDDY

26 is however, wholly misplaced as that was a case where the dealer, having apparently accounted for his purchases in June 2006, claimed credit of the tax paid on the purchases in the month of February 2007. Noting that credit ought to have been claimed in the month of June 2006 an error that could have been rectified by filing

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

Of the Department's clouded interpretation of the Centum

Bench: ANAND BYRAREDDY

26 is however, wholly misplaced as that was a case where the dealer, having apparently accounted for his purchases in June 2006, claimed credit of the tax paid on the purchases in the month of February 2007. Noting that credit ought to have been claimed in the month of June 2006 an error that could have been rectified by filing

ACE DESIGNERS LIMITED vs. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA

Of the Department's clouded interpretation of the Centum

Bench: ANAND BYRAREDDY

26 is however, wholly misplaced as that was a case where the dealer, having apparently accounted for his purchases in June 2006, claimed credit of the tax paid on the purchases in the month of February 2007. Noting that credit ought to have been claimed in the month of June 2006 an error that could have been rectified by filing

KAVERI PLASTO CONTAINERS PVT LTD vs. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA

Of the Department's clouded interpretation of the Centum

Bench: ANAND BYRAREDDY

26 is however, wholly misplaced as that was a case where the dealer, having apparently accounted for his purchases in June 2006, claimed credit of the tax paid on the purchases in the month of February 2007. Noting that credit ought to have been claimed in the month of June 2006 an error that could have been rectified by filing

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

Of the Department's clouded interpretation of the Centum

Bench: ANAND BYRAREDDY

26 is however, wholly misplaced as that was a case where the dealer, having apparently accounted for his purchases in June 2006, claimed credit of the tax paid on the purchases in the month of February 2007. Noting that credit ought to have been claimed in the month of June 2006 an error that could have been rectified by filing

DEPA INDIA PRIVATE LTD. vs. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA

Of the Department's clouded interpretation of the Centum

Bench: ANAND BYRAREDDY

26 is however, wholly misplaced as that was a case where the dealer, having apparently accounted for his purchases in June 2006, claimed credit of the tax paid on the purchases in the month of February 2007. Noting that credit ought to have been claimed in the month of June 2006 an error that could have been rectified by filing

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

Of the Department's clouded interpretation of the Centum

Bench: ANAND BYRAREDDY

26 is however, wholly misplaced as that was a case where the dealer, having apparently accounted for his purchases in June 2006, claimed credit of the tax paid on the purchases in the month of February 2007. Noting that credit ought to have been claimed in the month of June 2006 an error that could have been rectified by filing

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

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

reassessment orders as well as the - 7 - demand notices dated 17.05.2016 and 18.05.2016 relating to the assessment years 2012-13 and 2013-14 respectively. Though the petitioner has sought for a direction to the respondent to allow the deduction of sub-contractor for the assessment year in question, the same is not pressed. Accordingly, the said prayer is dismissed

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 under this Act, the Assessing Officer may, on receipt of an information from an income-tax authority under the Income-tax Act or any other authority under any law for the time being in force or on coming

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

reassessment proceedings by issuing a notice dated 30.06.2021; it is therefore clear that in the facts of the instant case, Section 149(1)(b) was not applicable and it was only Section 149(1)(a) of the I.T.Act that was applicable and consequently, the impugned proceedings pursuant to the Notice dated 30.06.2021 issued beyond he period of limitation, which expired

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

Bench: CHIEF JUSTICE,C M JOSHI

26. In Kabul Chawla [CIT v. Kabul Chawla, 2015 SCC OnLine Del 11555 : (2016) 380 ITR 573] , the Delhi High Court, while considering the very issue and on interpretation of Section 153-A of the 1961 Act, has summarised the legal position as under : (SCC OnLine Del para 38) “Summary of the legal position 38. On a conspectus of Section

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

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

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