THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIT(A) vs. M/S HEWLETT PACKARD GLOBALSOFT PVT LTD

Appeals are hereby dismissed by

Bench: ARAVIND KUMAR,VINEET SARAN

reassessed. To confer jurisdiction under Section 147(a) two conditions were required to be satisfied firstly the Assessing Officer must have reason to believe that income profits or gains 22 chargeable to income- tax have escaped assessment, and secondly he must also have reason to believe that such escapement has occurred by reason of either (i) omission or failure

THE PR COMMISSIONER OF vs. M/S MAJESTIC DEVELOPERS

Bench: SATISH CHANDRA SHARMA,V SRISHANANDA

201 (Kar.) HC]?" 3 2. Facts leading to filing of this appeal briefly stated are that the assessee - company claims to be involved in the business of development and construction and had claimed deduction under Section 80IB(10) of the Act in its return of income. The assessment order under Section 143(3) came to be passed. Subsequently, re-assessment

COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX vs. SRI SADGURU EDUCATION TRUST

Appeals stand disposed of

Bench: B.MANOHAR,VINEET SARAN

201 Respondent (By Sri K K Chythanya, Adv.) Appeals are filed under S.260 A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 praying to set aside the order dated 9.5.2014 by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, C Bench, Bangalore in ITA 715/2013 & 716/2013 for assessment year 2005-06 & 2006-07. 2 Appeals coming on for hearing this day, Vineet Saran J, delivered

COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX vs. SRI SADGURU EDUCATION TRUST

Appeals stand disposed of

Bench: B.MANOHAR,VINEET SARAN

201 Respondent (By Sri K K Chythanya, Adv.) Appeals are filed under S.260 A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 praying to set aside the order dated 9.5.2014 by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, C Bench, Bangalore in ITA 715/2013 & 716/2013 for assessment year 2005-06 & 2006-07. 2 Appeals coming on for hearing this day, Vineet Saran J, delivered

THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF vs. M/S H.H. CEMENT PRODUCTS

Bench: B.V.NAGARATHNA,JAYANT PATEL

Section 39(1), there was no need for the first appellant to interfere with the jurisdiction of the Deputy Commissioner. 5. However, on 26/03/2010, the first appellant issued show cause notices proposing to levy VAT at 12.5% on paving bricks/blocks treating them as falling outside entry No.2 of Schedule III. On 05/04/2010, the first appellant proceeded to pass an order