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

b), (c) or (e) or Section 31(4). The expression “direction” in the proviso could only refer to the directions which the Appellate Assistant Commissioner or other Tribunals can issue under the powers conferred on him or them under the respective sections. Therefore, the expression “finding” as well as the expression “direction” can be given full meaning, namely, that

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

SONAL APPAREL 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

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

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

ACE DESIGNERS LIMITED 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

INGRAM MICRO INDIA 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

INGRAM MICRO INDIA 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

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 GULBARGA vs. M/S MANJUNATHA COTTON AND GINNING FACTORY

The appeals are dismissed

Bench: ARAVIND KUMAR,N.KUMAR

4 held as under: “…..It is sufficient for us to refer to section 271(1)(a), which provides that a penalty may be imposed if the Income-tax Officer is satisfied that any person has without reasonable cause failed to furnish the return of total income, and to section 276C which provides that if a person wilfully fails to furnish

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

Bench: S.SUJATHA,RAVI V HOSMANI

B. Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Honourable ITAT was right in law in upholding action under section 153C by holding that handing over of assets is not - 9 - required for assuming jurisdiction under section 153C? C. Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Honourable ITAT was right

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

Bench: S.SUJATHA,RAVI V HOSMANI

B. Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Honourable ITAT was right in law in upholding action under section 153C by holding that handing over of assets is not - 9 - required for assuming jurisdiction under section 153C? C. Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Honourable ITAT was right

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

Bench: S.SUJATHA,RAVI V HOSMANI

B. Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Honourable ITAT was right in law in upholding action under section 153C by holding that handing over of assets is not - 9 - required for assuming jurisdiction under section 153C? C. Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Honourable ITAT was right

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

Bench: S.SUJATHA,RAVI V HOSMANI

B. Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Honourable ITAT was right in law in upholding action under section 153C by holding that handing over of assets is not - 9 - required for assuming jurisdiction under section 153C? C. Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Honourable ITAT was right

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

Bench: S.SUJATHA,RAVI V HOSMANI

B. Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Honourable ITAT was right in law in upholding action under section 153C by holding that handing over of assets is not - 9 - required for assuming jurisdiction under section 153C? C. Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Honourable ITAT was right

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

Bench: S.SUJATHA,RAVI V HOSMANI

B. Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Honourable ITAT was right in law in upholding action under section 153C by holding that handing over of assets is not - 9 - required for assuming jurisdiction under section 153C? C. Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Honourable ITAT was right