M/S ANS CONSTRUCTIONS LTD vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF COMMERCIAL

Bench: The Hon’Ble Mrs.Justice S.Sujatha

reassessment orders as well as the - 7 - demand notices dated 17.05.2016 and 18.05.2016 relating to the assessment years 2012-13 and 2013-14 respectively. Though the petitioner has sought for a direction to the respondent to allow the deduction of sub-contractor for the assessment year in question, the same is not pressed. Accordingly, the said prayer is dismissed

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

Of the Department's clouded interpretation of the Centum

Bench: ANAND BYRAREDDY

13 …PETITIONER (By Shri K.P.Kumar, Senior Advocate for Shri T. Suryanarayana, Advocate) AND: 1. The State of Karnataka, Represented herein by the Principal Secretary – Finance Department, Government of Karnataka, Vidhana Soudha, Bangalore 560 001. 2. The Deputy Commissioner of Commercial Taxes, (Audit – 4.1), Vanijya Therige Karyalaya -2, Koramangala, Bangalore 560 047. …RESPONDENTS (By Shri A.S.Ponnanna, Additional Advocate General

DEPA INDIA PRIVATE LTD. vs. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA

Of the Department's clouded interpretation of the Centum

Bench: ANAND BYRAREDDY

13 …PETITIONER (By Shri K.P.Kumar, Senior Advocate for Shri T. Suryanarayana, Advocate) AND: 1. The State of Karnataka, Represented herein by the Principal Secretary – Finance Department, Government of Karnataka, Vidhana Soudha, Bangalore 560 001. 2. The Deputy Commissioner of Commercial Taxes, (Audit – 4.1), Vanijya Therige Karyalaya -2, Koramangala, Bangalore 560 047. …RESPONDENTS (By Shri A.S.Ponnanna, Additional Advocate General

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

Of the Department's clouded interpretation of the Centum

Bench: ANAND BYRAREDDY

13 …PETITIONER (By Shri K.P.Kumar, Senior Advocate for Shri T. Suryanarayana, Advocate) AND: 1. The State of Karnataka, Represented herein by the Principal Secretary – Finance Department, Government of Karnataka, Vidhana Soudha, Bangalore 560 001. 2. The Deputy Commissioner of Commercial Taxes, (Audit – 4.1), Vanijya Therige Karyalaya -2, Koramangala, Bangalore 560 047. …RESPONDENTS (By Shri A.S.Ponnanna, Additional Advocate General

KAVERI PLASTO CONTAINERS PVT LTD vs. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA

Of the Department's clouded interpretation of the Centum

Bench: ANAND BYRAREDDY

13 …PETITIONER (By Shri K.P.Kumar, Senior Advocate for Shri T. Suryanarayana, Advocate) AND: 1. The State of Karnataka, Represented herein by the Principal Secretary – Finance Department, Government of Karnataka, Vidhana Soudha, Bangalore 560 001. 2. The Deputy Commissioner of Commercial Taxes, (Audit – 4.1), Vanijya Therige Karyalaya -2, Koramangala, Bangalore 560 047. …RESPONDENTS (By Shri A.S.Ponnanna, Additional Advocate General

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

Of the Department's clouded interpretation of the Centum

Bench: ANAND BYRAREDDY

13 …PETITIONER (By Shri K.P.Kumar, Senior Advocate for Shri T. Suryanarayana, Advocate) AND: 1. The State of Karnataka, Represented herein by the Principal Secretary – Finance Department, Government of Karnataka, Vidhana Soudha, Bangalore 560 001. 2. The Deputy Commissioner of Commercial Taxes, (Audit – 4.1), Vanijya Therige Karyalaya -2, Koramangala, Bangalore 560 047. …RESPONDENTS (By Shri A.S.Ponnanna, Additional Advocate General

ACE DESIGNERS LIMITED vs. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA

Of the Department's clouded interpretation of the Centum

Bench: ANAND BYRAREDDY

13 …PETITIONER (By Shri K.P.Kumar, Senior Advocate for Shri T. Suryanarayana, Advocate) AND: 1. The State of Karnataka, Represented herein by the Principal Secretary – Finance Department, Government of Karnataka, Vidhana Soudha, Bangalore 560 001. 2. The Deputy Commissioner of Commercial Taxes, (Audit – 4.1), Vanijya Therige Karyalaya -2, Koramangala, Bangalore 560 047. …RESPONDENTS (By Shri A.S.Ponnanna, Additional Advocate General

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

Of the Department's clouded interpretation of the Centum

Bench: ANAND BYRAREDDY

13 …PETITIONER (By Shri K.P.Kumar, Senior Advocate for Shri T. Suryanarayana, Advocate) AND: 1. The State of Karnataka, Represented herein by the Principal Secretary – Finance Department, Government of Karnataka, Vidhana Soudha, Bangalore 560 001. 2. The Deputy Commissioner of Commercial Taxes, (Audit – 4.1), Vanijya Therige Karyalaya -2, Koramangala, Bangalore 560 047. …RESPONDENTS (By Shri A.S.Ponnanna, Additional Advocate General

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

Of the Department's clouded interpretation of the Centum

Bench: ANAND BYRAREDDY

13 …PETITIONER (By Shri K.P.Kumar, Senior Advocate for Shri T. Suryanarayana, Advocate) AND: 1. The State of Karnataka, Represented herein by the Principal Secretary – Finance Department, Government of Karnataka, Vidhana Soudha, Bangalore 560 001. 2. The Deputy Commissioner of Commercial Taxes, (Audit – 4.1), Vanijya Therige Karyalaya -2, Koramangala, Bangalore 560 047. …RESPONDENTS (By Shri A.S.Ponnanna, Additional Advocate General

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

Of the Department's clouded interpretation of the Centum

Bench: ANAND BYRAREDDY

13 …PETITIONER (By Shri K.P.Kumar, Senior Advocate for Shri T. Suryanarayana, Advocate) AND: 1. The State of Karnataka, Represented herein by the Principal Secretary – Finance Department, Government of Karnataka, Vidhana Soudha, Bangalore 560 001. 2. The Deputy Commissioner of Commercial Taxes, (Audit – 4.1), Vanijya Therige Karyalaya -2, Koramangala, Bangalore 560 047. …RESPONDENTS (By Shri A.S.Ponnanna, Additional Advocate General

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

13 - sub-section (3) of Section 34 of the Act mean? “Finding” has not been defined in the Income Tax Act. Order 20 Rule 5 of the Code of Civil procedure reads: “In suits in which issues have been framed, the court shall state its finding or decision, with the reasons therefor, upon each separate issue, unless the finding upon

M/S. THE KOLAR & CHICKBALLAPUR vs. THE ASST. COMMISSIONER

The appeal stands disposed of as indicated above

Bench: S.SUJATHA,RAVI V HOSMANI

reassessment under Section 147, not a case for rectification wherein the tax liability has been enhanced. 6. Learned counsel for the revenue justifying the orders of the authorities submitted that Section 80 of the Act provides for submission of return for losses. In terms of the said Section, it is mandatory that the return for losses has to be filed

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

3.—For the purpose of assessment or reassessment under this section, the Assessing Officer may assess or reassess the income in respect of any issue, which has escaped assessment, and such issue comes to his notice subsequently in the course of the proceedings under this section, notwithstanding that the reasons for such issue have not been included in the reasons

COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX TDS vs. M/S BHARAT HOTELS LIMITED

Appeal stands dismissed

Bench: S.SUJATHA,VINEET SARAN

13 under Section 147 after expiry of one year from the end of the financial year in which notice under Section 148 was served. According to him, Section 147 of the Act would apply for computing the reasonable period and not Section 153(1) of the Act, and since notice under Section 148 could be served up to six years

M/S T T K PRESTIGE LTD vs. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX

Bench: The Hon’Ble Mrs.Justice S.Sujatha

reassess was brought to the notice - 8 - of the Court, arguing that, on concluding the assessment under section 143[3] of the Act, with all the material facts available on record, the presumption u/s. 114[e] of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 would be that the AO has looked into all the aspects of the matter made available

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

3 of the Karnataka Industrial Area Development Act, 1966, (Hereinafter referred to as the ‘KIADB Act’ for brevity) dated 9-3-2007, duly published in the Official Gazette dated 12-3-2007 that several parcels of land including the land comprising the aforesaid sites of the petitioners, as an “industrial area“. And by a notification dated 9-3-2007 also

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

Appeals stand disposed of accordingly

Bench: S.SUJATHA,RAVI V HOSMANI

3) of the IT. Act could not have disturbed the assessment/ reassessment order which has attained finality, unless the materials gathered in the course of the proceedings under Section 153A - 50 - of the Income-tax Act establish that the reliefs granted under the finalised assessment/reassessment were contrary to the facts unearthed during the course of 153A proceedings. 13

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

Appeals stand disposed of accordingly

Bench: S.SUJATHA,RAVI V HOSMANI

3) of the IT. Act could not have disturbed the assessment/ reassessment order which has attained finality, unless the materials gathered in the course of the proceedings under Section 153A - 50 - of the Income-tax Act establish that the reliefs granted under the finalised assessment/reassessment were contrary to the facts unearthed during the course of 153A proceedings. 13