M/S ANS CONSTRUCTIONS LTD vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF COMMERCIAL

Bench: The Hon’Ble Mrs.Justice S.Sujatha

3) OF THE KVAT ACT IN SUCH A MANNER SO AS TO PREMIT AVAILMENT OF INPUT TAX CREDIT BASED ON THE ANNUAL AUDITED STATEMENT OF ACCOUNTS IN FORM VAT 240 IRRESPECTIVE OF THE CLAIM BEING MADE IN THE RETURNS OF TURNOVERB FILED UNDER SECTION 35 OF THE KVAT ACT, IN SO FAR AS THE PETITIONER IS CONCERNED. THESE PETITIONS HAVING

INGRAM MICRO INDIA PVT.LTD. vs. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA

Of the Department's clouded interpretation of the Centum

Bench: ANAND BYRAREDDY

section 10(3) does not, in any way, suggest that input tax credit must be availed in the return filed for the month in which the selling dealer raises his invoice. Despite the same, relying on the judgment in Centum Industries, the Revenue started passing reassessment

KAVERI PLASTO CONTAINERS PVT LTD vs. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA

Of the Department's clouded interpretation of the Centum

Bench: ANAND BYRAREDDY

section 10(3) does not, in any way, suggest that input tax credit must be availed in the return filed for the month in which the selling dealer raises his invoice. Despite the same, relying on the judgment in Centum Industries, the Revenue started passing reassessment

ACE DESIGNERS LIMITED vs. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA

Of the Department's clouded interpretation of the Centum

Bench: ANAND BYRAREDDY

section 10(3) does not, in any way, suggest that input tax credit must be availed in the return filed for the month in which the selling dealer raises his invoice. Despite the same, relying on the judgment in Centum Industries, the Revenue started passing reassessment

M/S. HINDUSTAN COCA COLA vs. STATE OF KARNATAKA

Of the Department's clouded interpretation of the Centum

Bench: ANAND BYRAREDDY

section 10(3) does not, in any way, suggest that input tax credit must be availed in the return filed for the month in which the selling dealer raises his invoice. Despite the same, relying on the judgment in Centum Industries, the Revenue started passing reassessment

M/S INDIA MOTOR PARTS & ACCESSORIES LTD vs. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF

Of the Department's clouded interpretation of the Centum

Bench: ANAND BYRAREDDY

section 10(3) does not, in any way, suggest that input tax credit must be availed in the return filed for the month in which the selling dealer raises his invoice. Despite the same, relying on the judgment in Centum Industries, the Revenue started passing reassessment

M/S. HINDUSTAN COCA COLA vs. STATE OF KARNATAKA

Of the Department's clouded interpretation of the Centum

Bench: ANAND BYRAREDDY

section 10(3) does not, in any way, suggest that input tax credit must be availed in the return filed for the month in which the selling dealer raises his invoice. Despite the same, relying on the judgment in Centum Industries, the Revenue started passing reassessment

SONAL APPAREL PRIVATE LTD., vs. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA

Of the Department's clouded interpretation of the Centum

Bench: ANAND BYRAREDDY

section 10(3) does not, in any way, suggest that input tax credit must be availed in the return filed for the month in which the selling dealer raises his invoice. Despite the same, relying on the judgment in Centum Industries, the Revenue started passing reassessment

INGRAM MICRO INDIA PVT. LTD. vs. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA

Of the Department's clouded interpretation of the Centum

Bench: ANAND BYRAREDDY

section 10(3) does not, in any way, suggest that input tax credit must be availed in the return filed for the month in which the selling dealer raises his invoice. Despite the same, relying on the judgment in Centum Industries, the Revenue started passing reassessment

DEPA INDIA PRIVATE LTD. vs. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA

Of the Department's clouded interpretation of the Centum

Bench: ANAND BYRAREDDY

section 10(3) does not, in any way, suggest that input tax credit must be availed in the return filed for the month in which the selling dealer raises his invoice. Despite the same, relying on the judgment in Centum Industries, the Revenue started passing reassessment

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 made on the assessee or any person in consequence of, or to give effect to any finding, direction or order made under sections 20, 21, 22, (22A), 23 or 24 or any judgment or order made by the Supreme Court, the High Court, or any other court.” 3

AZIM PREMJI TRUSTEE COMPANY PVT LTD vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX

In the result, I pass the following:-

Bench: The Hon'Ble Mr.Justice S.R.Krishna Kumar

3.—For the purpose of assessment or reassessment under this section, the Assessing Officer may assess or reassess the income

M/S T T K PRESTIGE LTD vs. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX

Bench: The Hon’Ble Mrs.Justice S.Sujatha

3] of the Act for the Assessment Year 2007- 08, accepting the claim of the petitioner for allowances of the logo fees as ‘revenue expenditure’. However, notice dated 11.02.2014 issued under section 148 of the Act was served on the petitioner to reassess

M/S. THE KOLAR & CHICKBALLAPUR vs. THE ASST. COMMISSIONER

The appeal stands disposed of as indicated above

Bench: S.SUJATHA,RAVI V HOSMANI

reassessment under Section 147, not a case for rectification wherein the tax liability has been enhanced. 6. Learned counsel for the revenue justifying the orders of the authorities submitted that Section 80 of the Act provides for submission of return for losses. In terms of the said Section, it is mandatory that the return for losses has to be filed

COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX TDS vs. M/S BHARAT HOTELS LIMITED

Appeal stands dismissed

Bench: S.SUJATHA,VINEET SARAN

reassessement or recomputation in which the notice under Section 148 was served, the same would amount to seven years from the end of the financial year and he thus contends that reasonable period of limitation under Section 201 of the Act should also be seven years from the end of the relevant financial year. Learned counsel has also relied

S N SIMHA vs. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA

In the result there is no merit in this writ petition and the

Bench: The Hon’Ble Mr. Justice Anand Byrareddy Writ Petition No. 24840 Of 2012 (La-Kiadb) Between: 1. S.N.Simha, Aged About 73 Years, Son Of Late G.R.Swamy, 2. S.N.Yamuna Devi, Wife Of Sri. S.N.Simha, Aged About 66 Years, Both Are Proprietors M/S. Viswabandhu Press & Sree Bharathi Cottage Industries Company, No.16, 1St Cross, Cottonpet, Bangalore – 560 053. …Petitioners (By Shri. S.P.Shankar, Senior Advocate For Shri. K.L.Sreenivas, Advocate For M/S. K.N.L. Associates) And: 1. The State Of Karnataka, Represented By Its Secretary, Commerce & Industries

3 of the Karnataka Industrial Area Development Act, 1966, (Hereinafter referred to as the ‘KIADB Act’ for brevity) dated 9-3-2007, duly published in the Official Gazette dated 12-3-2007 that several parcels of land including the land comprising the aforesaid sites of the petitioners, as an “industrial area“. And by a notification dated 9-3-2007 also

PR COMMISSIONER OF vs. M/S GMR HYDERABAD

Appeals stand disposed of accordingly

Bench: S.SUJATHA,RAVI V HOSMANI

reassess income of such other person in accordance with the provisions of Section 153A. - 57 - 30. Thus, it is clear that the Assessing Officer while passing the order under Section 153A read with Section 143[3

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

Appeals stand disposed of accordingly

Bench: S.SUJATHA,RAVI V HOSMANI

reassess income of such other person in accordance with the provisions of Section 153A. - 57 - 30. Thus, it is clear that the Assessing Officer while passing the order under Section 153A read with Section 143[3