PR COMMISSIONER OF vs. M/S GMR HYDERABAD

Appeals stand disposed of accordingly

Bench: S.SUJATHA,RAVI V HOSMANI

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: “Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case

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

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: “Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case

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

Appeals stand disposed of accordingly

Bench: S.SUJATHA,RAVI V HOSMANI

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: “Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case

PR COMMISSIONER OF vs. M/S GMR HYDERABAD

Appeals stand disposed of accordingly

Bench: S.SUJATHA,RAVI V HOSMANI

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: “Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case

PR COMMISSIONER OF vs. M/S GMR HYDERABAD

Appeals stand disposed of accordingly

Bench: S.SUJATHA,RAVI V HOSMANI

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: “Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case

PR COMMISSIONER OF vs. M/S GMR HYDERABAD

Appeals stand disposed of accordingly

Bench: S.SUJATHA,RAVI V HOSMANI

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: “Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case

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

Appeals stand disposed of accordingly

Bench: S.SUJATHA,RAVI V HOSMANI

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: “Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case

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

Appeals stand disposed of accordingly

Bench: S.SUJATHA,RAVI V HOSMANI

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: “Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case

PR COMMISSIONER OF vs. M/S GMR HYDERABAD

Appeals stand disposed of accordingly

Bench: S.SUJATHA,RAVI V HOSMANI

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: “Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case

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

Bench: K.SOMASHEKAR,UMESH M ADIGA

260A OF THE INCOME TAX ACT, 1961, PRAYING TO: i)FORMULATE THE SUBSTANTIAL QUESTIONS OF LAW STATED IN THE APPEAL AND ALLOW THE APPEAL; ii) SET ASIDE THE ORDERS PASSED BY THE INCOME-TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, BENGALURU IN M.P.NO.152/BANG/2016 (IN ITA NO.1457/BANG/2014) DATED 06.03.2018 FOR ASSESSMENT YEAR 2011-2012 VIDE ANNEXURE-D AND CONFIRM THE ORDER OF THE APPELLATE

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

COMMISSIONER OF INCOME vs. M/S C RAMAIAH REDDY

In the result, we do not find any merit in the appeal

Bench: ALOK ARADHE,M.NAGAPRASANNA

Section 260A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as the Act for short) has been preferred by the revenue. The subject matter of the appeal pertains to the Assessment year 2005-06. The appeal was admitted by a bench of this Court vide order dated 26.09.2012 on the following substantial questions of law: (i) Whether

THE SRI KANNIKAPARAMESWARI CO OP BANK LIMITED vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER

The appeal stands allowed

Bench: S.SUJATHA,HANCHATE SANJEEVKUMAR

260A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (‘Act’ for short) challenging the order dated 23.09.2016 passed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Bangalore Bench “SMC”, Bengaluru (‘Tribunal’ for short) in ITA No.1364/Bang/2016 relating to the Assessment Year 2004-05. 2. The appellant/assessee is a Co-operative Society governed by the Karnataka Cooperative Societies Act, 1959 and is engaged

M/S MAHESH INVESTMENTS vs. THE ASST. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX

In the result, we do not find any merit in this

Bench: ALOK ARADHE,H.T. NARENDRA PRASAD

260A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as the Act for short) has been preferred by the assessee. The subject matter of the appeal pertains to the Assessment year 1992-93. The appeal was admitted by a bench of this Court vide order dated 28.10.2014 on the following substantial question of law: Whether on the facts

THE PR COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX vs. M/S VSL MINING COMPANY PVT LTD

Appeal is dismissed as being

Bench: S.G.PANDIT,C.M. POONACHA

260A of the Income Tax Act, 19611 challenging the order dated 28.6.2019 passed in ITA No.204/Bang/2014 by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, ‘C’ Bench, Bengaluru2, for the Assessment Year3 2008-2009. 1 Hereinafter referred to as the ‘IT Act’ 2 Hereinafter referred to as the ‘Tribunal’ 3 Hereinafter referred to as ‘AY’ 3 2. The relevant facts leading

COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX vs. M/S LANCY CONSTRUCTIONS

Bench: S.SUJATHA,VINEET SARAN

260A OF INCOME TAX ACT, 1961, PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE COMMON APPELLATE ORDER DATED 4.7.2014 PASSED BY THE ITAT ‘A’ BENCH, BANGALORE, IN APPEAL NO.1299/BANG/2012, FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2008-09. THESE APPEALS COMING ON FOR ADMISSION THIS DAY, VINEET SARAN J., DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: JUDGMENT The present appeals filed by the Revenue pertain to the assessment years

COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX vs. M/S LANCY CONSTRUCTIONS

Bench: S.SUJATHA,VINEET SARAN

260A OF INCOME TAX ACT, 1961, PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE COMMON APPELLATE ORDER DATED 4.7.2014 PASSED BY THE ITAT ‘A’ BENCH, BANGALORE, IN APPEAL NO.1299/BANG/2012, FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2008-09. THESE APPEALS COMING ON FOR ADMISSION THIS DAY, VINEET SARAN J., DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: JUDGMENT The present appeals filed by the Revenue pertain to the assessment years

M/S THE KARNATAKA STATE CO-OPERATIVE APEX BANK vs. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX

In the result, the appeal is disposed of

Bench: ALOK ARADHE,HEMANT CHANDANGOUDAR

260A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as the Act for short) has been preferred by the assessee. The subject matter of the appeal pertains to the Assessment year 2007-08. The appeal was admitted by a bench of this Court on the following substantial questions of law: "(1) Whether the Tribunal is right in applying