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

Bench: K.SOMASHEKAR,UMESH M ADIGA

reassess the income of the other person in accordance with the provisions of section 153A of the Act. Further the Delhi High Court has not specifically held that the period of six assessment years would be difference for the purpose of section 28 153A and 153C of the Act. Assuming without admission if the contention of the assessee that period

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

Bench: K.SOMASHEKAR,UMESH M ADIGA

Section 153C against the assessee for the assessment years 2005-2006 to 2010-2011 and a notice under Section 143(3) for the assessment year 2011- 2012. Therefore, keeping in view the aforesaid search and seizure which was carried under Section 132 of the IT Act, 1961 is concerned, it is relevant to refer to Section 153C

PR.COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-7 vs. M/S TALLY INDIA PVT LTD

In the result, we do not find

Bench: ALOK ARADHE,M.G.S. KAMAL

254 is received by the 4 Chief Commissioner or Commissioner or, as the case may be, the order under section 263 or section 264 is passed by the 4 Chief Commissioner or Commissioner. (3) The provisions of sub- sections (1) and (2) shall not apply to the following classes of assessments, reassessments

THE PR. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, vs. BASHIR AHMED ABDIRRAJ AM MATTE

The appeal is hereby dismissed

Bench: M.I.ARUN,B. MURALIDHARA PAI

reassessment or recomputation. 11. Section 153(3) of the Act reads as under: “(3) Notwithstanding anything contained in sub-sections (1), (1A) and (2), an order of fresh assessment or fresh order under section 92CA, as the case may be, in pursuance of an order under section 250 or section 254

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 ORDERS PASSED UNDER KST ACT, 1957 FOR THE YEARS 1998-99 TO 2004-05 BY THE ASST.COMMISSIONER - 2 - OF COMMERCIAL TAXES (A & R) – 4.9, BANGALORE, R-3 HEREIN, DATED 15.04.2016 IN THE CASE OF THE PETITIONER VIDE ANNEXURES-K, L, M, N, P, Q & R & ETC., THIS W.P. IS BEING HEARD AND RESERVED ON 24.11.2022 COMING ON FOR PRONOUNCEMENT

PR. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX -2 vs. M/S YESHODA ELECTRICALS

The appeals are dismissed

Bench: S.G.PANDIT,K. V. ARAVIND

reassessment proceedings initiated were not in accordance with law. The Assessing Officer completed the assessment under Sections 144 read with 147 of the Act on 25.03.2013. The Assessee preferred an appeal before the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) (hereinafter referred to as ‘CIT(A)’). The CIT(A), by order dated 29.03.2016, partly allowed the appeal validating the notice under Section

THE INCOME TAX OFFICER vs. M/S TOYOTA KIRLOSKAR MOTOR (P) LTD

The appeals are dismissed

Bench: ALOK ARADHE,M.G.S. KAMAL

reassessment proceedings initiated were not in accordance with law. The Assessing Officer completed the assessment under Sections 144 read with 147 of the Act on 25.03.2013. The Assessee preferred an appeal before the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) (hereinafter referred to as ‘CIT(A)’). The CIT(A), by order dated 29.03.2016, partly allowed the appeal validating the notice under Section

PR COMMISSIONER OF vs. M/S QUANTECH GLOBAL SERVICES LTD

Bench: SATISH CHANDRA SHARMA,V SRISHANANDA

254 (P&H). That was a case where return in question filed by the assessee was neither signed by the assessee nor verified in terms of the mandate of Section 140 of the Act. The Court was of the opinion that such a return cannot be treated as return even a return filed by the assessee and this inherent defect

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

Bench: S.SUJATHA,JAYANT PATEL

254 (SC) – constitution bench; 9. Mohammed Serajuddin vs. State of Orissa [1975] 35 STC 136 (SC) – constitution bench; 10. Deputy Commissioner of Agricultural Income Tax & Sales Tax vs. Indian Explosives Ltd. [1985] 60 STC 30 (SC) – three members bench; 11. State of Maharashtra vs. Embee Corporation [1997] 107 STC 196 (SC) – two members bench; 12. Minerals & Metals Trading Corporation