THE PR COMMISSIONER OF vs. M/S MPHASIS LIMITED

Bench: The Hon'Ble Mr. Justice M. Nagaprasanna

120, authorise the said officer to take action under any of the clauses aforesaid in respect of such building, place, vessel, vehicle or aircraft. [Explanation.— For the removal of doubts, it is hereby declared that the reason to suspect, as recorded by the income-tax authority under this sub-section, shall not be disclosed to any person or any authority

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

Bench: S.SUJATHA,RAVI V HOSMANI

reassessment proceedings under Section 147/148 of the Act is concerned. The issue being purely one of law, the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal was not in error in permitting the assessee to raise such a point before it. 18. The Hon’ble High Court of Bombay in the case of Commissioner of Income tax-1, Nagpur vs. Lalitkumar Bardia reported

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

Bench: S.SUJATHA,RAVI V HOSMANI

reassessment proceedings under Section 147/148 of the Act is concerned. The issue being purely one of law, the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal was not in error in permitting the assessee to raise such a point before it. 18. The Hon’ble High Court of Bombay in the case of Commissioner of Income tax-1, Nagpur vs. Lalitkumar Bardia reported

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

Bench: S.SUJATHA,RAVI V HOSMANI

reassessment proceedings under Section 147/148 of the Act is concerned. The issue being purely one of law, the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal was not in error in permitting the assessee to raise such a point before it. 18. The Hon’ble High Court of Bombay in the case of Commissioner of Income tax-1, Nagpur vs. Lalitkumar Bardia reported

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

Bench: S.SUJATHA,RAVI V HOSMANI

reassessment proceedings under Section 147/148 of the Act is concerned. The issue being purely one of law, the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal was not in error in permitting the assessee to raise such a point before it. 18. The Hon’ble High Court of Bombay in the case of Commissioner of Income tax-1, Nagpur vs. Lalitkumar Bardia reported

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

Bench: S.SUJATHA,RAVI V HOSMANI

reassessment proceedings under Section 147/148 of the Act is concerned. The issue being purely one of law, the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal was not in error in permitting the assessee to raise such a point before it. 18. The Hon’ble High Court of Bombay in the case of Commissioner of Income tax-1, Nagpur vs. Lalitkumar Bardia reported

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

Bench: S.SUJATHA,RAVI V HOSMANI

reassessment proceedings under Section 147/148 of the Act is concerned. The issue being purely one of law, the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal was not in error in permitting the assessee to raise such a point before it. 18. The Hon’ble High Court of Bombay in the case of Commissioner of Income tax-1, Nagpur vs. Lalitkumar Bardia reported

DEVAS MULTIMEDIA PRIVATE LIMITED vs. THE PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX

Bench: The Hon’Ble Mr.Justice P.B. Bajanthri Writ Petition No.11618 Of 2016 (T-It) Between:

reassessment or recomputation or fresh assessment, as the case may be, expires:) 22 (Provided that in the circumstances referred to in clause (ii) or clause (x) of Explanation 1 to section 153, if the period of limitation available to the Transfer Pricing Officer for making an order is less than sixty days, such remaining period shall be deemed to have

THE PR COMMISSIONER OF vs. M/S MAHAVEER CALYX

Bench: SATISH CHANDRA SHARMA,V SRISHANANDA

120 TAXMANN.COM 346 (KAR) and 'CIT Vs. SJR BUILDERS', supra and the decision of Madras High Court in 'CIT Vs. ARUN EXCELLO FOUNDATIONS (P) LTD.' (2013) 259 CTR 362, has held that accounting Standard 7 was not applicable to the real estate developers. Therefore, he submitted that percentage of completion method cannot be thrashed upon assessee and assessee was right

THE PR COMMISSIONER OF vs. M/S MAJESTIC DEVELOPERS

Bench: SATISH CHANDRA SHARMA,V SRISHANANDA

120 TAXMANN.COM 346 (KAR) and 'CIT Vs. SJR BUILDERS', supra and the decision of Madras High Court in 'CIT Vs. ARUN EXCELLO FOUNDATIONS (P) LTD.' (2013) 259 CTR 362, has held that accounting Standard 7 was not applicable to the real estate developers. Therefore, he submitted that percentage of completion method cannot be thrashed upon assessee and assessee was right

THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX GULBARGA vs. M/S MANJUNATHA COTTON AND GINNING FACTORY

The appeals are dismissed

Bench: ARAVIND KUMAR,N.KUMAR

reassessment shall be deemed to constitute satisfaction of the Assessing Officer for initiation of the penalty proceedings under the said clause (c).” 49. By the aforesaid deeming provision a legal fiction is created. When the assessment order contains a direction for initiation of penalty proceedings such order shall deem to constitute satisfaction of the Assessing Officer for initiation of penalty

THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX vs. M/S MWP LTD

Bench: N.KUMAR,RATHNAKALA

reassessment shall be deemed to constitute satisfaction of the Assessing Officer for initiation of the penalty proceedings under the said clause (c).” 49. By the aforesaid deeming provision a legal fiction is created. When the assessment order contains a direction for initiation of penalty proceedings such order shall deem to constitute satisfaction of the Assessing Officer for initiation of penalty

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

120 (Kar.), held that, under the JDA, the assessee had handed over possession of the land to the developer and that, in view of the aforesaid decision, constituted as a transfer of immovable property under Section 2(47)(v) of the IT Act. Accordingly, the assessee’s appeal was dismissed. 4. Sri A. Shankar, learned Senior Counsel appearing

SHRI. SUMIR J. HINDUJA vs. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX

In the result, appeal is disposed of

Bench: ALOK ARADHE,HEMANT CHANDANGOUDAR

reassessment proceedings? (6) Whether on the facts and circumstances of the case the funds provided to the associate concerns by GIP Ltd as per the terms of the SSSA the understanding and agreements thereunder can be treated as deemed dividend u/s 2(22)(e) of the Income Tax Act in the hands of the appellant, without appreciating the fact that

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

Of the Department's clouded interpretation of the Centum

Bench: ANAND BYRAREDDY

reassessment orders from the end of 2014 denying input tax claimed by dealers to the extent it was availed 27 in a month other than the month in which the purchase invoices were raised. Thereafter, apparently, realising the Revenue’s folly, the Legislature substituted Section 10(3) vide the Karnataka Value Added Tax (Amendment) Act, 2015, (“the 2015 KVAT Amendment

KAVERI PLASTO CONTAINERS PVT LTD vs. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA

Of the Department's clouded interpretation of the Centum

Bench: ANAND BYRAREDDY

reassessment orders from the end of 2014 denying input tax claimed by dealers to the extent it was availed 27 in a month other than the month in which the purchase invoices were raised. Thereafter, apparently, realising the Revenue’s folly, the Legislature substituted Section 10(3) vide the Karnataka Value Added Tax (Amendment) Act, 2015, (“the 2015 KVAT Amendment

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

Of the Department's clouded interpretation of the Centum

Bench: ANAND BYRAREDDY

reassessment orders from the end of 2014 denying input tax claimed by dealers to the extent it was availed 27 in a month other than the month in which the purchase invoices were raised. Thereafter, apparently, realising the Revenue’s folly, the Legislature substituted Section 10(3) vide the Karnataka Value Added Tax (Amendment) Act, 2015, (“the 2015 KVAT Amendment

DEPA INDIA PRIVATE LTD. vs. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA

Of the Department's clouded interpretation of the Centum

Bench: ANAND BYRAREDDY

reassessment orders from the end of 2014 denying input tax claimed by dealers to the extent it was availed 27 in a month other than the month in which the purchase invoices were raised. Thereafter, apparently, realising the Revenue’s folly, the Legislature substituted Section 10(3) vide the Karnataka Value Added Tax (Amendment) Act, 2015, (“the 2015 KVAT Amendment