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

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

Bench: K.SOMASHEKAR,UMESH M ADIGA

reassessment under Section 147 read with Section 144 by bringing to tax all the income which formed part of 6 total income under the original assessment order passed. However, it was noticed that though the assessment proceedings was initiated by issue of notice under Section 143(2), The Tribunal vide said order also knocked down the assessment proceedings completed under

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

Bench: S.SUJATHA,JAYANT PATEL

14. In order to decide in the present appeals whether the sale by the appellant has occasioned the movement of goods from the foreign vendor in the course of import, it is necessary to analyze the Master Lease Agreement (MLA), Purchase order placed by the end customer on the foreign vendor, ‘Lease Schedule’ and the Acceptance Certificate and so also

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 but subject to the provisions of sub-section (2), at any time within a period of eight years from the expiry of the year to which the tax relates, proceed to assess or re-assess to the best of its judgment the tax payable by the dealer in respect of such turnover after issuing a notice to the dealer

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

Bench: K.SOMASHEKAR,UMESH M ADIGA

reassessment under Section 147 read with Section 144 by bringing to tax all the income which formed part of 5 total income under the original assessment order passed. However, it was noticed that though the assessment proceedings was initiated by issue of notice under Section 143(2), The Tribunal vide said order also knocked down the assessment proceedings completed under

THE PR COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX vs. M/S ATRIA WIND (KADAMBUR) PVT LTD

Bench: CHIEF JUSTICE,C M JOSHI

iii) The AO will exercise normal assessment powers in respect of the six years previous to the relevant AY in which the search takes place. The AO has the power to assess and reassess the “total income” of the aforementioned six years in separate assessment orders for each of the six years. In other words there will be only

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

THE PR.COMMISSIONER OF vs. M/S MAHAVEER CALYX

In the result, the orders passed by the Assessing

Bench: SATISH CHANDRA SHARMA,V SRISHANANDA

III. Liberty is also reserved to the appellant company to produce such material, which are available with it including the material produced before this Court, before the Advance Ruling Authority. IV. If and when, such an application is filed by the appellant company, the Advance Ruling Authority is directed to consider the same without being influenced

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

Appeals stand disposed of accordingly

Bench: S.SUJATHA,RAVI V HOSMANI

14 - 2. These appeals are filed by the Revenue under Section 260A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 [‘Act’ for short] challenging the orders of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ‘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

PR COMMISSIONER OF vs. M/S GMR HYDERABAD

Appeals stand disposed of accordingly

Bench: S.SUJATHA,RAVI V HOSMANI

14 - 2. These appeals are filed by the Revenue under Section 260A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 [‘Act’ for short] challenging the orders of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ‘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

PR COMMISSIONER OF vs. M/S GMR HYDERABAD

Appeals stand disposed of accordingly

Bench: S.SUJATHA,RAVI V HOSMANI

14 - 2. These appeals are filed by the Revenue under Section 260A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 [‘Act’ for short] challenging the orders of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ‘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

PR COMMISSIONER OF vs. M/S GMR HYDERABAD

Appeals stand disposed of accordingly

Bench: S.SUJATHA,RAVI V HOSMANI

14 - 2. These appeals are filed by the Revenue under Section 260A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 [‘Act’ for short] challenging the orders of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ‘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

PR COMMISSIONER OF vs. M/S GMR HYDERABAD

Appeals stand disposed of accordingly

Bench: S.SUJATHA,RAVI V HOSMANI

14 - 2. These appeals are filed by the Revenue under Section 260A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 [‘Act’ for short] challenging the orders of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ‘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

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

Appeals stand disposed of accordingly

Bench: S.SUJATHA,RAVI V HOSMANI

14 - 2. These appeals are filed by the Revenue under Section 260A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 [‘Act’ for short] challenging the orders of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ‘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

PR. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (CENTRAL) vs. M/S. DELHI INTERNATIONAL AIRPORT PVT. LTD.,

Appeals stand disposed of accordingly

Bench: S.SUJATHA,RAVI V HOSMANI

14 - 2. These appeals are filed by the Revenue under Section 260A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 [‘Act’ for short] challenging the orders of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ‘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

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

Appeals stand disposed of accordingly

Bench: S.SUJATHA,RAVI V HOSMANI

14 - 2. These appeals are filed by the Revenue under Section 260A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 [‘Act’ for short] challenging the orders of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ‘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

PR COMMISSIONER OF vs. M/S GMR HYDERABAD

Appeals stand disposed of accordingly

Bench: S.SUJATHA,RAVI V HOSMANI

14 - 2. These appeals are filed by the Revenue under Section 260A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 [‘Act’ for short] challenging the orders of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ‘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

PR COMMISSIONER OF vs. M/S GMR HYDERABAD

Appeals stand disposed of accordingly

Bench: S.SUJATHA,RAVI V HOSMANI

14 - 2. These appeals are filed by the Revenue under Section 260A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 [‘Act’ for short] challenging the orders of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ‘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