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

J., in Brindaban Chandra Basak v. Income Tax Officer though it had not finally expressed any opinion that, was inclined to accept the view expressed by the Division Bench of the Allahabad High Court in Pt. Hazari Lal case . We have gone through the decision carefully, for the reasons given by us, we agree with the view expressed

SRI N GOVINDARAJU vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER

Appeal stands disposed of

Bench: S.SUJATHA,VINEET SARAN

J, delivered the following: JUDGMENT The primary question that requires determination in this appeal is that when the reason recorded for reopening the assessment under section 147 of the Income Tax Act (for short ‘Act’) itself does not survive, can tax be levied by the Assessing Officer for a totally different reason or issue, which was not the subject matter

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

Bench: S.SUJATHA,JAYANT PATEL

27 has also been used in Section 5 of the CST Act. The Hon’ble Supreme Court has held in K.G.Khosla & Co. (P) Ltd., vs. Deputy Commissioner of Commercial Taxes” cited supra as under:- “Movement of goods from Belgium to India was in pursuance of the conditions of the contract between the assessee and the Director-General of Supplies. There

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

Bench: K.SOMASHEKAR,UMESH M ADIGA

27. In support of his contentions, learned standing counsel has facilitated the following reliances for consideration of the appeal: 1) (2014) 49 taxmann.com98(Kar) - Canara Housing Development Co. Vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, held as under “18. A perusal of Section 153A shows that it starts with a non obstante clause relating to normal assessment procedure which is covered

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

Bench: K.SOMASHEKAR,UMESH M ADIGA

2 by holding that the Tribunal was not correct in holding that the assessment under section 153C was valid despite there being no satisfaction recorded to the effect that the documents found during the search on June 17, 2008 were incriminating in nature and prima facie represented undisclosed income." III) SSP Aviation Ltd., vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income-tax held

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

In the result, the orders passed by the Assessing

Bench: SATISH CHANDRA SHARMA,V SRISHANANDA

J., DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: ORDER This petition under Section 65(1) of the Karnataka Value Added Tax Act, 2003 hereinafter referred to as 'the Act' for short) has been filed against the order dated 31.07.2017 passed by the Karnataka Appellate Tribunal by which the Tribunal has upheld the common order dated 27.12.2012 passed by the Joint Commissioner of Commercial Taxes

PR COMMISSIONER OF vs. M/S GMR HYDERABAD

Appeals stand disposed of accordingly

Bench: S.SUJATHA,RAVI V HOSMANI

J U D G M E N T Since common and akin issues are involved in these appeals, they are heard together and disposed of by this common judgment. - 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

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

J U D G M E N T Since common and akin issues are involved in these appeals, they are heard together and disposed of by this common judgment. - 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

PR COMMISSIONER OF vs. M/S GMR HYDERABAD

Appeals stand disposed of accordingly

Bench: S.SUJATHA,RAVI V HOSMANI

J U D G M E N T Since common and akin issues are involved in these appeals, they are heard together and disposed of by this common judgment. - 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

PR COMMISSIONER OF vs. M/S GMR HYDERABAD

Appeals stand disposed of accordingly

Bench: S.SUJATHA,RAVI V HOSMANI

J U D G M E N T Since common and akin issues are involved in these appeals, they are heard together and disposed of by this common judgment. - 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

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

Appeals stand disposed of accordingly

Bench: S.SUJATHA,RAVI V HOSMANI

J U D G M E N T Since common and akin issues are involved in these appeals, they are heard together and disposed of by this common judgment. - 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

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

Appeals stand disposed of accordingly

Bench: S.SUJATHA,RAVI V HOSMANI

J U D G M E N T Since common and akin issues are involved in these appeals, they are heard together and disposed of by this common judgment. - 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

PR COMMISSIONER OF vs. M/S GMR HYDERABAD

Appeals stand disposed of accordingly

Bench: S.SUJATHA,RAVI V HOSMANI

J U D G M E N T Since common and akin issues are involved in these appeals, they are heard together and disposed of by this common judgment. - 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

PR COMMISSIONER OF vs. M/S GMR HYDERABAD

Appeals stand disposed of accordingly

Bench: S.SUJATHA,RAVI V HOSMANI

J U D G M E N T Since common and akin issues are involved in these appeals, they are heard together and disposed of by this common judgment. - 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

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

Appeals stand disposed of accordingly

Bench: S.SUJATHA,RAVI V HOSMANI

J U D G M E N T Since common and akin issues are involved in these appeals, they are heard together and disposed of by this common judgment. - 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

PR COMMISSIONER OF vs. M/S GMR HYDERABAD

Appeals stand disposed of accordingly

Bench: S.SUJATHA,RAVI V HOSMANI

J U D G M E N T Since common and akin issues are involved in these appeals, they are heard together and disposed of by this common judgment. - 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

PR. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-4 vs. RAJKUMAR C (HUF)

In the result, the order passed by the

Bench: ALOK ARADHE,R. NATARAJ

27-04-2016 PASSED BY THE ITAT, 'A' BENCH, BENGALURU, IN APPEAL PROCEEDINGS IN ITA 2 NO.1379/BANG/2014 FOR ASSESSMENT YEAR 2005-06, AS SOUGHT FOR IN THIS APPEAL; AND TO GRANT SUCH OTHER RELIEF AS DEEMED FIT, IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE. THIS I.T.A. COMING ON FOR HEARING, THIS DAY, ALOK ARADHE J., DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: JUDGMENT This appeal under

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

Bench: CHIEF JUSTICE,C M JOSHI

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 the proceedings of which have been completed before the 1st day of October