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 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

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

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

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

The appeals are dismissed

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

260A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as the ‘Act’), impugning the common order dated 03.02.2021 in - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:38487-DB ITA No. 261 of 2021 C/W ITA No. 264 of 2021 ITA No.1175/Bang/2016 and ITA No.1176/Bang/2016 for the Assessment Year 2007-08, passed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, ‘C’ Bench, Bengaluru

THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX vs. SHRI H E PANDURANGA

The appeal is disposed of

Bench: ALOK ARADHE,H.T. NARENDRA PRASAD

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 1996-97. The appeal was admitted by a bench of this Court vide order dated 04.07.2013 on the following substantial questions of law: (i) Whether the Tribunal

PR. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (CENTRAL) vs. SHRI. CHERIAN ABRAHAM

In the result, the appeal stands dismissed

Bench: S.SUJATHA,RAVI V HOSMANI

260A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 [‘Act’ for short] assailing the order of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal Bangalore Bench “C” ['Tribunal' for short] dated 21.11.2017 passed in ITA No.1575/bang/2016 relating to the assessment year 2012-13. 2. The appeal has been admitted by this Court to consider the following substantial question of law: “Whether on the facts

THE PR COMMISSIONER OF vs. M/S MAJESTIC DEVELOPERS

Bench: SATISH CHANDRA SHARMA,V SRISHANANDA

reassess under section 147 or pass an order enhancing the assessment or reducing a refund already made or otherwise increasing the liability of the assessee under section 154, for any assessment year beginning on or before the 1st day of April, 2001. Rule 8D(2) The expenditure in relation to income which does not form part of the total income

THE PR COMMISSIONER OF vs. M/S MAHAVEER CALYX

Bench: SATISH CHANDRA SHARMA,V SRISHANANDA

reassess under section 147 or pass an order enhancing the assessment or reducing a refund already made or otherwise increasing the liability of the assessee under section 154, for 8 any assessment year beginning on or before the 1st day of April, 2001. Rule 8D(2) The expenditure in relation to income which does not form part of the total

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

The appeal is hereby dismissed

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

260A OF THE INCOME- TAX ACT, 1961, PRAYING TO FORMULATE THE SUBSTANTIAL QUESTION OF LAW AS STATED ABOVE; ALLOW THE APPEAL AND SET ASIDE THE ORDERS PASSED BY THE INCOME-TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, ‘A’ BENCH, BANGALORE IN ITA NO.7/BANG/2021 DATED 21.09.2022 FOR THE A.Y. 2013-14 MARKED AS ANNEXURE-A AND CONFIRM THE ORDER DATED 19.03.2020 PASSED BY THE PRINCIPAL

PR.COMMISSIONER OF INCOMETAX-2 vs. M/S.EYGBS (INDIA) PVT LTD

Bench: CHIEF JUSTICE,C M JOSHI

260A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 [the Act], impugning a common order dated 08.11.2024 [impugned order], passed by the learned Income Tax Appellate Tribunal [Tribunal] in ITA No.1367/Bang/2024 in respect of the Assessment Year [AY] 2015- 16 and in ITA No.1368/Bang/2024 in respect of AY 2016-17. 3. The Revenue had preferred the said appeals before the learned Tribunal

THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX vs. M/S. ASTRA ZENECA PHARMA

In the result, the order passed by the

Bench: ALOK ARADHE,HEMANT CHANDANGOUDAR

260A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’, for short) have been filed by the revenue. The subject matter of I.T.A.No.370/2011 & I.T.A.No.37/2012 pertains to Assessment year 1996-97. Since, appeals have been decided by two different judgments, though they pertain to the same Assessment year and since, common questions of law arise

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

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 2008-09. The appeal was admitted by a bench of this Court vide order dated 19.03.2020 on the following substantial questions of law: "(i) Whether on the facts

THE DIRECTOR OF INCOME TAX vs. THE EXECUTIVE ENGINEER

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 revenue, whereas, I.T.A.No.148/2011 has been preferred by the assessee. Since, both the appeals arise out of common order passed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Tribunal’, for short) and on account of similarity