HEWLETT PACKARD FINANCIAL SERVICES INDIA PRIVATE vs. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA

Bench: S.SUJATHA,JAYANT PATEL

5(2) of the CST Act, the concerned transactions are nothing but ‘sale’ falling under Section 2(29) of the KVAT Act 2003 and the turnovers qualifies as taxable turnover as per Section 2(34) of the KVAT Act and thus chargeable for VAT in the State. 21. Coming to the issue of levy of penalty and interest

COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX vs. SRI SAHAKARNAGAR CREDIT COOPERATIVE SOCIETY LTD

Appeals are allowed in part

Bench: B.MANOHAR,VINEET SARAN

5 of the KST Act on the sale of machinery and equipments worth more than Rs.1 crore in each individual sale invoice and on the sale of construction material worth more than Rs.25 lakhs in each sale invoice 7 effected to a dealer undertaking an infrastructure project in the state or any other dealer authorized to execute the works

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

5. I have given my anxious consideration to the rival submissions and perused the material on record. 6. Before adverting to the rival contentions, it is necessary to state that it is an undisputed fact that the impugned proceedings were initiated subsequent to 01.04.2021 when Sections 147 to 151 were amended under the Finance Act, 2021. In Ashish Agarwal

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

The appeal is dismissed

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

11) No direction under sub-section (5) shall be issued unless an opportunity of being heard is given to the assessee and the Assessing Officer on such directions which are prejudicial to the interest of the assessee or the interest of the revenue. respectively. (12) No direction under sub-section (5) shall be issued after nine months from

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

Bench: CHIEF JUSTICE,C M JOSHI

5 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:34452-DB ITA No. 103 of 2025 the relevant assessment year could be made under Section 153A of the Act. 6. Insofar as the jurisdiction to reassess the income under Section 153A of the Act, without any incriminating material being found is concerned; the said issue is covered by the decision of the Supreme

THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX vs. KENNAMETAL INC,USA

Bench: KRISHNA S DIXIT,RAMACHANDRA D. HUDDAR

reassessment or recomputation could be made at any time. The amended sub-section (3) of Section 153 introduced by the Finance Act, 2016 is not applicable to the present case in view of sub-section (9) of the said provision. As per sub-section (9) of Section 153, inserted by the Finance Act, 2016, the assessment pursuant to an order

M/S B L KASHYAP & SONS LTD vs. JOINT COMMISSIONER OF COMMERCIAL

Bench: S.SUJATHA

5. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner reiterating the grounds urged in the writ petitions, would contend that subsequent to dropping of the proceedings initiated under Section 39[2] of the Act by the Respondent No.2, notices were issued on 25.06.2016 under Section 39[2][e] of the Act by the very same Authority, to initiate reassessment proceedings. Such being

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

In the result, the orders passed by the Assessing

Bench: SATISH CHANDRA SHARMA,V SRISHANANDA

11. Smt. Sujatha, learned Additional Government Advocate has no objection to the request made by Sri. R.V. Prasad, learned Counsel for the appellant company. 12. In view of the request made by the learned Counsel for the appellant company, in our opinion, we need not have to express any opinion on the correctness or otherwise of the impugned order passed

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

11 of 2021 Whether the burden under Section 70 of the Karnataka Value Added Tax Act, 2003 has been rightly cast, and whether the materials placed on record have been duly considered to opine that such burden is discharged or not. 2. A brief statement of facts for a decision on the afore question is stated thus. The appellant manufactures

M/S SANKHLA POLYMERS (P) LTD vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD-12(2)

In the result, the appeal relating to the assessment

Bench: D.V.SHYLENDRA KUMAR,B.SREENIVASE GOWDA

reassessing the income for the assessment year 2002-03 by issue of notice under Section 148 of the Act and tax liability had been determined as per the amendment to Section 115JB. 5 7. For the subsequent two assessment years, the assessee being fully aware of the provisions of this Section and having filed returns, they had been assessed

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

Appeals stand disposed of accordingly

Bench: S.SUJATHA,RAVI V HOSMANI

5. Learned counsel for the Revenue argued that the conditions for issuance of notice under Section 153A of the Act being well settled, merely on the ground that no incriminating material was seized by the Department, the proceedings initiated under Section 153A of the Act cannot be held to be unjustifiable; the finding of the Tribunal, runs contrary

PR COMMISSIONER OF vs. M/S GMR HYDERABAD

Appeals stand disposed of accordingly

Bench: S.SUJATHA,RAVI V HOSMANI

5. Learned counsel for the Revenue argued that the conditions for issuance of notice under Section 153A of the Act being well settled, merely on the ground that no incriminating material was seized by the Department, the proceedings initiated under Section 153A of the Act cannot be held to be unjustifiable; the finding of the Tribunal, runs contrary

PR COMMISSIONER OF vs. M/S GMR HYDERABAD

Appeals stand disposed of accordingly

Bench: S.SUJATHA,RAVI V HOSMANI

5. Learned counsel for the Revenue argued that the conditions for issuance of notice under Section 153A of the Act being well settled, merely on the ground that no incriminating material was seized by the Department, the proceedings initiated under Section 153A of the Act cannot be held to be unjustifiable; the finding of the Tribunal, runs contrary

PR COMMISSIONER OF vs. M/S GMR HYDERABAD

Appeals stand disposed of accordingly

Bench: S.SUJATHA,RAVI V HOSMANI

5. Learned counsel for the Revenue argued that the conditions for issuance of notice under Section 153A of the Act being well settled, merely on the ground that no incriminating material was seized by the Department, the proceedings initiated under Section 153A of the Act cannot be held to be unjustifiable; the finding of the Tribunal, runs contrary

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

Appeals stand disposed of accordingly

Bench: S.SUJATHA,RAVI V HOSMANI

5. Learned counsel for the Revenue argued that the conditions for issuance of notice under Section 153A of the Act being well settled, merely on the ground that no incriminating material was seized by the Department, the proceedings initiated under Section 153A of the Act cannot be held to be unjustifiable; the finding of the Tribunal, runs contrary

PR COMMISSIONER OF vs. M/S GMR HYDERABAD

Appeals stand disposed of accordingly

Bench: S.SUJATHA,RAVI V HOSMANI

5. Learned counsel for the Revenue argued that the conditions for issuance of notice under Section 153A of the Act being well settled, merely on the ground that no incriminating material was seized by the Department, the proceedings initiated under Section 153A of the Act cannot be held to be unjustifiable; the finding of the Tribunal, runs contrary

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

5. Learned counsel for the Revenue argued that the conditions for issuance of notice under Section 153A of the Act being well settled, merely on the ground that no incriminating material was seized by the Department, the proceedings initiated under Section 153A of the Act cannot be held to be unjustifiable; the finding of the Tribunal, runs contrary

PR COMMISSIONER OF vs. M/S GMR HYDERABAD

Appeals stand disposed of accordingly

Bench: S.SUJATHA,RAVI V HOSMANI

5. Learned counsel for the Revenue argued that the conditions for issuance of notice under Section 153A of the Act being well settled, merely on the ground that no incriminating material was seized by the Department, the proceedings initiated under Section 153A of the Act cannot be held to be unjustifiable; the finding of the Tribunal, runs contrary