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

Bench: S.SUJATHA,RAVI V HOSMANI

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 Section 153C were issued prior to transfer of case and jurisdiction conferred on the DCIT

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

Bench: S.SUJATHA,RAVI V HOSMANI

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 Section 153C were issued prior to transfer of case and jurisdiction conferred on the DCIT

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

Bench: S.SUJATHA,RAVI V HOSMANI

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 Section 153C were issued prior to transfer of case and jurisdiction conferred on the DCIT

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

Bench: S.SUJATHA,RAVI V HOSMANI

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 Section 153C were issued prior to transfer of case and jurisdiction conferred on the DCIT

THE PR COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX vs. M/S VSL MINING COMPANY PVT LTD

Appeal is dismissed as being

Bench: S.G.PANDIT,C.M. POONACHA

127 DRT 327 (Kar) 8 required to be deleted. While considering the said contentions, the Tribunal has held as follows: “7.6.1 We have carefully considered the legal arguments/contentions put forth by both parties. The facts not in dispute are that the substantive and protective additions were made in the case on hand on the basis of material found and seized

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

Bench: S.SUJATHA,JAYANT PATEL

127 (SC) – constitution bench; 7. Deputy Commissioner of Agricultural Income Tax & Service Tax vs. Kotak Co. [1973] 32 STC 6 (SC) – constitution bench; 21 8. Binani Brothers Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Union of India [1975] 33 STC 254 (SC) – constitution bench; 9. Mohammed Serajuddin vs. State of Orissa [1975] 35 STC 136 (SC) – constitution bench; 10. Deputy Commissioner of Agricultural Income