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 PR. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX vs. M/S BIOPLUS LIFE SCIENCES PVT LTD

In the result, I pass the following:-

Bench: The Hon'Ble Mr.Justice S.R.Krishna Kumar Writ Petition No.1014 Of 2017 (T-Kst) Between: M/S. Rainbow Colour Lab, No.13, D.J.C. Complex, Hudson Circle, Bengaluru – 560 027. A Partnership Firm Represented By Its Partner Sri.G.K.Madan Mohan, Aged About 62 Years, S/O Sri.G.V.Krishna Reddy. ...Petitioner (By Sri. M.Thirumalesh, Advocate ) And: 1. State Of Karnataka

reassessment to give effect to an order of competent court, would mean an order passed under the sales tax law and not under any other Act. 6. In S.C. Prashar v. Vasantsen Dwarkadas, [1963] 49 ITR 1 (SC), Godbole (P.V.), Income-tax Officer v. Jagannath Fakirchand, [1963] 49 ITR 88 (SC) and Commissioner of Income-tax v. Sardar Lakhmir Singh

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 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

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

Of the Department's clouded interpretation of the Centum

Bench: ANAND BYRAREDDY

1, 2015, the Karnataka Value Added Tax (Amendment) Act, 2015 (“the 2015 KVAT Amendment Act” for short) was brought into force. As proposed in the Karnataka State Budget for the years 2015-16 Section 5 of the 2015 KVAT Amendment Act substituted Section 10(3) of the KVAT Act. Section 10(3) as substituted by 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

1, 2015, the Karnataka Value Added Tax (Amendment) Act, 2015 (“the 2015 KVAT Amendment Act” for short) was brought into force. As proposed in the Karnataka State Budget for the years 2015-16 Section 5 of the 2015 KVAT Amendment Act substituted Section 10(3) of the KVAT Act. Section 10(3) as substituted by the 2015 KVAT Amendment

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

Of the Department's clouded interpretation of the Centum

Bench: ANAND BYRAREDDY

1, 2015, the Karnataka Value Added Tax (Amendment) Act, 2015 (“the 2015 KVAT Amendment Act” for short) was brought into force. As proposed in the Karnataka State Budget for the years 2015-16 Section 5 of the 2015 KVAT Amendment Act substituted Section 10(3) of the KVAT Act. Section 10(3) as substituted by the 2015 KVAT Amendment

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

Of the Department's clouded interpretation of the Centum

Bench: ANAND BYRAREDDY

1, 2015, the Karnataka Value Added Tax (Amendment) Act, 2015 (“the 2015 KVAT Amendment Act” for short) was brought into force. As proposed in the Karnataka State Budget for the years 2015-16 Section 5 of the 2015 KVAT Amendment Act substituted Section 10(3) of the KVAT Act. Section 10(3) as substituted by the 2015 KVAT Amendment

ACE DESIGNERS LIMITED vs. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA

Of the Department's clouded interpretation of the Centum

Bench: ANAND BYRAREDDY

1, 2015, the Karnataka Value Added Tax (Amendment) Act, 2015 (“the 2015 KVAT Amendment Act” for short) was brought into force. As proposed in the Karnataka State Budget for the years 2015-16 Section 5 of the 2015 KVAT Amendment Act substituted Section 10(3) of the KVAT Act. Section 10(3) as substituted by the 2015 KVAT Amendment

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

Of the Department's clouded interpretation of the Centum

Bench: ANAND BYRAREDDY

1, 2015, the Karnataka Value Added Tax (Amendment) Act, 2015 (“the 2015 KVAT Amendment Act” for short) was brought into force. As proposed in the Karnataka State Budget for the years 2015-16 Section 5 of the 2015 KVAT Amendment Act substituted Section 10(3) of the KVAT Act. Section 10(3) as substituted by the 2015 KVAT Amendment

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

Of the Department's clouded interpretation of the Centum

Bench: ANAND BYRAREDDY

1, 2015, the Karnataka Value Added Tax (Amendment) Act, 2015 (“the 2015 KVAT Amendment Act” for short) was brought into force. As proposed in the Karnataka State Budget for the years 2015-16 Section 5 of the 2015 KVAT Amendment Act substituted Section 10(3) of the KVAT Act. Section 10(3) as substituted by 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

1, 2015, the Karnataka Value Added Tax (Amendment) Act, 2015 (“the 2015 KVAT Amendment Act” for short) was brought into force. As proposed in the Karnataka State Budget for the years 2015-16 Section 5 of the 2015 KVAT Amendment Act substituted Section 10(3) of the KVAT Act. Section 10(3) as substituted by 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

1, 2015, the Karnataka Value Added Tax (Amendment) Act, 2015 (“the 2015 KVAT Amendment Act” for short) was brought into force. As proposed in the Karnataka State Budget for the years 2015-16 Section 5 of the 2015 KVAT Amendment Act substituted Section 10(3) of the KVAT Act. Section 10(3) as substituted by the 2015 KVAT Amendment

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

Bench: S.SUJATHA,RAVI V HOSMANI

1), Bengaluru to DCIT, Central Circle, Bengaluru on 20.07.2009, as per the order passed under Section 127(2) dated 20.07.2009; notices under Section 153C for the assessment years under consideration were issued by the DCIT, Central Circle, Bengaluru on 11.05.2009; date of transfer of files from ACIT is 19.08.2009. Thus, it is ex-facie apparent that the - 19 - notices under

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

Bench: S.SUJATHA,RAVI V HOSMANI

1), Bengaluru to DCIT, Central Circle, Bengaluru on 20.07.2009, as per the order passed under Section 127(2) dated 20.07.2009; notices under Section 153C for the assessment years under consideration were issued by the DCIT, Central Circle, Bengaluru on 11.05.2009; date of transfer of files from ACIT is 19.08.2009. Thus, it is ex-facie apparent that the - 19 - notices under

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

Bench: S.SUJATHA,RAVI V HOSMANI

1), Bengaluru to DCIT, Central Circle, Bengaluru on 20.07.2009, as per the order passed under Section 127(2) dated 20.07.2009; notices under Section 153C for the assessment years under consideration were issued by the DCIT, Central Circle, Bengaluru on 11.05.2009; date of transfer of files from ACIT is 19.08.2009. Thus, it is ex-facie apparent that the - 19 - notices under

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

Bench: S.SUJATHA,RAVI V HOSMANI

1), Bengaluru to DCIT, Central Circle, Bengaluru on 20.07.2009, as per the order passed under Section 127(2) dated 20.07.2009; notices under Section 153C for the assessment years under consideration were issued by the DCIT, Central Circle, Bengaluru on 11.05.2009; date of transfer of files from ACIT is 19.08.2009. Thus, it is ex-facie apparent that the - 19 - notices under

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

Bench: S.SUJATHA,RAVI V HOSMANI

1), Bengaluru to DCIT, Central Circle, Bengaluru on 20.07.2009, as per the order passed under Section 127(2) dated 20.07.2009; notices under Section 153C for the assessment years under consideration were issued by the DCIT, Central Circle, Bengaluru on 11.05.2009; date of transfer of files from ACIT is 19.08.2009. Thus, it is ex-facie apparent that the - 19 - notices under