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

Bench: K.SOMASHEKAR,UMESH M ADIGA

II) (III) 2009-10 28,76,23,325 9,95,82,217 2010-11 2,29,05,056 1,46,91,363 Of these, the Assessing Officer found that to the extent given in column 3 above, the appellant was unable to substantiate the said expense claimed before the Assessing Officer. 16. In respect of assessment of income of Rs.48

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

Bench: K.SOMASHEKAR,UMESH M ADIGA

II) CIT vs. IBC Knowledge Park(P) Ltd., held as under: “46. 153C is relevant for the purposes of this case. Sub-section (1) of Section 153C begins with a non- obstante clause and it states that notwithstanding anything contained in Sections 139, 147, 148, 149, 151 and 153, where the Assessing Officer is satisfied that any valuable assets, seized

THE PR COMMISSIONER OF vs. M/S MPHASIS LIMITED

Bench: The Hon'Ble Mr. Justice M. Nagaprasanna

reassessment or recomputation under sub-section (3) of section 143 or section 144 or section 147 or] [ Section 153- A or clause (c) of Section 158-BC]] unless the reasons for retaining the same are recorded by him in writing and the approval of the [Principal Chief Commissioner or Chief Commissioner], [Principal Commissioner or Commissioner], [Principal Director General or Director

M/S. JINDAL ALUMINIUM LIMITED vs. THE ADDITIONAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX

Bench: The Hon’Ble Mr. Justice B. M. Shyam Prasad

reassessment proceedings. 9. The petitioners have donated, during the relevant assessment years, a sum aggregating over Rs.17 Crores to M/s. Herbicure because of the approval granted vide notification dated 14.03.2008 under section 35[1][ii

WIPRO LIMITED vs. THE JOINT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX

Bench: The Hon’Ble Mr. Justice Krishna S.Dixit Writ Petition No.20040/2019 (T-It) Between:

ii) On the other hand, the phrase ‘fresh assessment’ has been used in the following sections: • Proviso (a) to Section 240; • Section 251(1)(a) –words omitted by Finance Act, 2001 with effect from 01.06.2001. • Explanation 1(iii) to section 245A(b). 29 • Section 153(2A) prior to substitution by Finance Act, 2016 with effect from 01.06.2016. • Section

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

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

II, 6TH FLOOR, VANIJYA THERIGE KARYALAYA - 1, GANDHINAGAR, BENGALURU - 560009 2 . DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF COMMERCIAL TAXES, AUDIT - 4.5, DVO – 4, ROOM No.204, 2ND FLOOR, VTK - 2, KORAMANGALA BANGALORE - 560047 R - 2 - 3 . STATE OF KARNATAKA DEPARTMENT OF FINANCE BY ITS SECRETARY VIDHANA SOUDHA AMBEDKAR VEEDHI BANGALORE – 560001 …RESPONDENTS [BY SRI T.K.VEDAMURTHY, AGA.] THESE WRIT PETITIONS ARE FILED UNDER ARTICLES

DEVAS MULTIMEDIA PRIVATE LIMITED vs. THE PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX

Bench: The Hon’Ble Mr.Justice P.B. Bajanthri Writ Petition No.11618 Of 2016 (T-It) Between:

reassessment or recomputation or fresh assessment, as the case may be, expires:) 22 (Provided that in the circumstances referred to in clause (ii) or clause (x) of Explanation 1 to section 153, if the period of limitation available to the Transfer Pricing Officer for making an order is less than sixty days, such remaining period shall be deemed to have

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

ii) The petitioner can also not be considered, construed or treated as ‘any person’ as contemplated in the said proviso since the same means, only a person who is intimately connected or interlinked or has a nexus to the parties in PRO Lab’s case and not to anyone else, much less, the petitioner herein, who was neither a party

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

reassessed the properties to tax. And that there are several houses that have been constructed in the area. It is also stated that the Bangalore Development Authority has in its Revised Comprehensive Development Plan, 2011, indicated the land in the erstwhile Survey no. 58/1 and 59/1 for the formation of a residential layout and park. Therefore the same could

SRI SAIDEEPA JEWELLARY WORKS vs. ASST COMMISSIONER OF COMMERCIAL TAXES(AUDIT)-2

Bench: The Hon'Ble Mr.Justice Ram Mohan Reddy

II), Davangere, issued notices of even date 01.02.2013 in Form VAT 275 Annexures ‘A’ to ‘E’ for the periods 2005-06 to 2009-10, calling upon the petitioner to produce the books of account and documents indicated therein in exercise of jurisdiction under sub- section (1) of Section 52 of the Act. Petitioner did not respond to the notices

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

Appeals stand disposed of accordingly

Bench: S.SUJATHA,RAVI V HOSMANI

35 - Section 153A of the Act provides that if any proceeding or any order of assessment or reassessment made under sub-Section (1) is annulled in appeal or any other legal provision, then the assessment or reassessment relating to any assessment year which had abated under the second proviso would stand revived. The proviso thereto says that such revival shall

PR COMMISSIONER OF vs. M/S GMR HYDERABAD

Appeals stand disposed of accordingly

Bench: S.SUJATHA,RAVI V HOSMANI

35 - Section 153A of the Act provides that if any proceeding or any order of assessment or reassessment made under sub-Section (1) is annulled in appeal or any other legal provision, then the assessment or reassessment relating to any assessment year which had abated under the second proviso would stand revived. The proviso thereto says that such revival shall

PR COMMISSIONER OF vs. M/S GMR HYDERABAD

Appeals stand disposed of accordingly

Bench: S.SUJATHA,RAVI V HOSMANI

35 - Section 153A of the Act provides that if any proceeding or any order of assessment or reassessment made under sub-Section (1) is annulled in appeal or any other legal provision, then the assessment or reassessment relating to any assessment year which had abated under the second proviso would stand revived. The proviso thereto says that such revival shall

PR COMMISSIONER OF vs. M/S GMR HYDERABAD

Appeals stand disposed of accordingly

Bench: S.SUJATHA,RAVI V HOSMANI

35 - Section 153A of the Act provides that if any proceeding or any order of assessment or reassessment made under sub-Section (1) is annulled in appeal or any other legal provision, then the assessment or reassessment relating to any assessment year which had abated under the second proviso would stand revived. The proviso thereto says that such revival shall

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

Appeals stand disposed of accordingly

Bench: S.SUJATHA,RAVI V HOSMANI

35 - Section 153A of the Act provides that if any proceeding or any order of assessment or reassessment made under sub-Section (1) is annulled in appeal or any other legal provision, then the assessment or reassessment relating to any assessment year which had abated under the second proviso would stand revived. The proviso thereto says that such revival shall

PR COMMISSIONER OF vs. M/S GMR HYDERABAD

Appeals stand disposed of accordingly

Bench: S.SUJATHA,RAVI V HOSMANI

35 - Section 153A of the Act provides that if any proceeding or any order of assessment or reassessment made under sub-Section (1) is annulled in appeal or any other legal provision, then the assessment or reassessment relating to any assessment year which had abated under the second proviso would stand revived. The proviso thereto says that such revival shall

PR COMMISSIONER OF vs. M/S GMR HYDERABAD

Appeals stand disposed of accordingly

Bench: S.SUJATHA,RAVI V HOSMANI

35 - Section 153A of the Act provides that if any proceeding or any order of assessment or reassessment made under sub-Section (1) is annulled in appeal or any other legal provision, then the assessment or reassessment relating to any assessment year which had abated under the second proviso would stand revived. The proviso thereto says that such revival shall

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

35 - Section 153A of the Act provides that if any proceeding or any order of assessment or reassessment made under sub-Section (1) is annulled in appeal or any other legal provision, then the assessment or reassessment relating to any assessment year which had abated under the second proviso would stand revived. The proviso thereto says that such revival shall