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

reassessment proceedings by issuing a notice dated 30.06.2021; it is therefore clear that in the facts of the instant case, Section 149(1)(b) was not applicable and it was only Section 149(1)(a) of the I.T.Act that was applicable and consequently, the impugned proceedings pursuant to the Notice dated 30.06.2021 issued beyond he period of limitation, which expired

PR. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX vs. SMT. G. LAKSHMI ARUNA

Bench: K.SOMASHEKAR,UMESH M ADIGA

1) of Section 142 has been issued to him, or (b) a return of income has been furnished by such other person but no notice under sub- section (2) of Section 143 has been served and limitation of serving the notice under sub-section (2) of Section 143 has expired, or (c) assessment or reassessment, if any, has been made

PR. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX vs. SHRI. GALI JANARDHANA REDDY

Bench: K.SOMASHEKAR,UMESH M ADIGA

1) of Section 142 has been issued to him, or (b) a return of income has been furnished by such other person but no notice under sub- section (2) of Section 143 has been served and limitation of serving the notice under sub-section (2) of Section 143 has expired, or (c) assessment or reassessment, if any, has been made

COMMISSIONER OF INCOME vs. SHRI MUNINAGA REDDY

Bench: ARAVIND KUMAR,JAYANT PATEL

13 (f) Ever if there is no specific finding regarding the existence of the conditions mentioned in Section 271(1)(c), at least the facts set out in Explanation 1(A) & 1(B) it should be discernible from the said order which would by a legal fiction constitute concealment because of deeming provision. (g) Even if these conditions

WIPRO LIMITED vs. THE JOINT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX

Bench: The Hon’Ble Mr. Justice Krishna S.Dixit Writ Petition No.20040/2019 (T-It) Between:

c) Section 240 provides that the refund on appeal would arise where an order in appeal on assessment is set aside or cancelled with a direction to undertake a fresh assessment/re-assessment and such a direction is accomplished; although, section 153(5) prescribes a time limit 10 of three months for giving effect to the orders passed under

SHRI. MUNINAGA REDDY vs. THE ASST. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME -TAX CIRCLE 6 (1)

Appeals are allowed to the aforesaid extent

Bench: ARAVIND KUMAR,JAYANT PATEL

reassessment cannot be declared as invalid in the penalty proceedings.” 8. We are not required to consider the other contingencies for examination of legality and validity of the penalty under Section 271(1)(c) of the Act, but clauses (p), (q) & (r) of the above referred observations are required to be considered. 9. As per the above referred decision

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

c) of sub-section (1) of Section 28 applies or an order of assessment or reassessment in cases falling within clause (a) of sub-section (1) or sub- section (I-A) of this section shall be made after the expiry of four years from the end of the year in which the income, profits or gains were first assessable: * * * Provided

THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX vs. M/S MAKINO ASIA PVT LTD

Bench: B.MANOHAR,DILIP B.BHOSALE

reassessment for A.Y.98-99 vide its 10 subsequent letter and the claim for set off of loss of A.Y.98-99 was based on its return as well as original intimation which had not been rectified. Having regard to the facts of the case, I do not see any justification for levy of penalty u/s 271(1)(c). There is merit

S N SIMHA vs. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA

In the result there is no merit in this writ petition and the

Bench: The Hon’Ble Mr. Justice Anand Byrareddy Writ Petition No. 24840 Of 2012 (La-Kiadb) Between: 1. S.N.Simha, Aged About 73 Years, Son Of Late G.R.Swamy, 2. S.N.Yamuna Devi, Wife Of Sri. S.N.Simha, Aged About 66 Years, Both Are Proprietors M/S. Viswabandhu Press & Sree Bharathi Cottage Industries Company, No.16, 1St Cross, Cottonpet, Bangalore – 560 053. …Petitioners (By Shri. S.P.Shankar, Senior Advocate For Shri. K.L.Sreenivas, Advocate For M/S. K.N.L. Associates) And: 1. The State Of Karnataka, Represented By Its Secretary, Commerce & Industries

reassessed the properties to tax. And that there are several houses that have been constructed in the area. It is also stated that the Bangalore Development Authority has in its Revised Comprehensive Development Plan, 2011, indicated the land in the erstwhile Survey no. 58/1 and 59/1 for the formation of a residential layout and park. Therefore the same could

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:

c) of Explanation (1) to Section 263 of Act 1961 cited supra. Thus, petitioner has not made out a case in respect of issue relation to, “Jurisdiction of the respondent in invoking Section 263 of Act 1961”. Consequently, if there is any shortcoming in the impugned notice, petitioner has other remedy of furnishing explanation and appraising the 17 respondent. Thus

THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX vs. M/S. IBC KNOWLEDGE PARK PVT. LTD.,

In the result, the appeals filed by the Revenue

Bench: B.V.NAGARATHNA,JAYANT PATEL

13. It is contended on behalf of the Revenue that the fixtures such as, transformers, D.G.sets, elevators etc., were part of the building and income from letting out of building is chargeable to tax under the head income from house property. That the assessing officer had rightly disallowed the claim of the assessee for deduction on account of depreciation

THE COMMISIONER OF INCOME-TAX vs. M/S IBC KNOWLEDGE PARK PVT LTD

In the result, the appeals filed by the Revenue

Bench: B.V.NAGARATHNA,JAYANT PATEL

13. It is contended on behalf of the Revenue that the fixtures such as, transformers, D.G.sets, elevators etc., were part of the building and income from letting out of building is chargeable to tax under the head income from house property. That the assessing officer had rightly disallowed the claim of the assessee for deduction on account of depreciation

THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX vs. M/S. IBC KNOWLEDGE PARK PVT. LTD.,

In the result, the appeals filed by the Revenue

Bench: B.V.NAGARATHNA,JAYANT PATEL

13. It is contended on behalf of the Revenue that the fixtures such as, transformers, D.G.sets, elevators etc., were part of the building and income from letting out of building is chargeable to tax under the head income from house property. That the assessing officer had rightly disallowed the claim of the assessee for deduction on account of depreciation

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

PR COMMISSIONER OF vs. M/S GMR HYDERABAD

Appeals stand disposed of accordingly

Bench: S.SUJATHA,RAVI V HOSMANI

C’ Bench, Bengaluru, (‘Tribunal’ for short) as shown in the cause title. 3. The appeals were admitted to consider the following substantial question of law: In ITA Nos.322/2018 to 324/2018: “Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was justified in law in quashing the assessment order passed under Section 143(3) r/w Section 153A

PR COMMISSIONER OF vs. M/S GMR HYDERABAD

Appeals stand disposed of accordingly

Bench: S.SUJATHA,RAVI V HOSMANI

C’ Bench, Bengaluru, (‘Tribunal’ for short) as shown in the cause title. 3. The appeals were admitted to consider the following substantial question of law: In ITA Nos.322/2018 to 324/2018: “Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was justified in law in quashing the assessment order passed under Section 143(3) r/w Section 153A

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

Appeals stand disposed of accordingly

Bench: S.SUJATHA,RAVI V HOSMANI

C’ Bench, Bengaluru, (‘Tribunal’ for short) as shown in the cause title. 3. The appeals were admitted to consider the following substantial question of law: In ITA Nos.322/2018 to 324/2018: “Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was justified in law in quashing the assessment order passed under Section 143(3) r/w Section 153A

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

Appeals stand disposed of accordingly

Bench: S.SUJATHA,RAVI V HOSMANI

C’ Bench, Bengaluru, (‘Tribunal’ for short) as shown in the cause title. 3. The appeals were admitted to consider the following substantial question of law: In ITA Nos.322/2018 to 324/2018: “Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was justified in law in quashing the assessment order passed under Section 143(3) r/w Section 153A