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

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

reassess the income in respect of any issue, which has escaped assessment, and such issue comes to his notice subsequently in the course of the proceedings under this section, notwithstanding that the reasons for such issue have not been included in the reasons recorded under subsection (2) of section 148. Explanation 4

THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX vs. M/S SHASTHA PHARMA LABORATORIES

The appeal is dismissed

Bench: N.KUMAR,RATHNAKALA

Section 147 of the Act, after the expiry of 4 years from the end of the relevant assessment year. However, that 4 years period would not come in the way of such assessment or - 13 - reassessment

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

In the result, the orders passed by the Assessing

Bench: SATISH CHANDRA SHARMA,V SRISHANANDA

4 of the Act r/w Rul3 27 of the Karnataka Sales Tax Rules. III. Liberty is also reserved to the appellant company to produce such material, which are available with it including the material produced before this Court, before the Advance Ruling Authority. IV. If and when, such an application is filed by the appellant company, the Advance Ruling Authority

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

Of the Department's clouded interpretation of the Centum

Bench: ANAND BYRAREDDY

reassessment orders from the end of 2014 denying input tax claimed by dealers to the extent it was availed 27 in a month other than the month in which the purchase invoices were raised. Thereafter, apparently, realising the Revenue’s folly, the Legislature substituted Section 10(3) vide the Karnataka Value Added Tax (Amendment) Act, 2015, (“the 2015 KVAT Amendment

ACE DESIGNERS LIMITED vs. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA

Of the Department's clouded interpretation of the Centum

Bench: ANAND BYRAREDDY

reassessment orders from the end of 2014 denying input tax claimed by dealers to the extent it was availed 27 in a month other than the month in which the purchase invoices were raised. Thereafter, apparently, realising the Revenue’s folly, the Legislature substituted Section 10(3) vide the Karnataka Value Added Tax (Amendment) Act, 2015, (“the 2015 KVAT Amendment

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

Of the Department's clouded interpretation of the Centum

Bench: ANAND BYRAREDDY

reassessment orders from the end of 2014 denying input tax claimed by dealers to the extent it was availed 27 in a month other than the month in which the purchase invoices were raised. Thereafter, apparently, realising the Revenue’s folly, the Legislature substituted Section 10(3) vide the Karnataka Value Added Tax (Amendment) Act, 2015, (“the 2015 KVAT Amendment

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

Of the Department's clouded interpretation of the Centum

Bench: ANAND BYRAREDDY

reassessment orders from the end of 2014 denying input tax claimed by dealers to the extent it was availed 27 in a month other than the month in which the purchase invoices were raised. Thereafter, apparently, realising the Revenue’s folly, the Legislature substituted Section 10(3) vide the Karnataka Value Added Tax (Amendment) Act, 2015, (“the 2015 KVAT Amendment

DEPA INDIA PRIVATE LTD. vs. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA

Of the Department's clouded interpretation of the Centum

Bench: ANAND BYRAREDDY

reassessment orders from the end of 2014 denying input tax claimed by dealers to the extent it was availed 27 in a month other than the month in which the purchase invoices were raised. Thereafter, apparently, realising the Revenue’s folly, the Legislature substituted Section 10(3) vide the Karnataka Value Added Tax (Amendment) Act, 2015, (“the 2015 KVAT Amendment

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

Of the Department's clouded interpretation of the Centum

Bench: ANAND BYRAREDDY

reassessment orders from the end of 2014 denying input tax claimed by dealers to the extent it was availed 27 in a month other than the month in which the purchase invoices were raised. Thereafter, apparently, realising the Revenue’s folly, the Legislature substituted Section 10(3) vide the Karnataka Value Added Tax (Amendment) Act, 2015, (“the 2015 KVAT Amendment

KAVERI PLASTO CONTAINERS PVT LTD vs. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA

Of the Department's clouded interpretation of the Centum

Bench: ANAND BYRAREDDY

reassessment orders from the end of 2014 denying input tax claimed by dealers to the extent it was availed 27 in a month other than the month in which the purchase invoices were raised. Thereafter, apparently, realising the Revenue’s folly, the Legislature substituted Section 10(3) vide the Karnataka Value Added Tax (Amendment) Act, 2015, (“the 2015 KVAT Amendment

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

Of the Department's clouded interpretation of the Centum

Bench: ANAND BYRAREDDY

reassessment orders from the end of 2014 denying input tax claimed by dealers to the extent it was availed 27 in a month other than the month in which the purchase invoices were raised. Thereafter, apparently, realising the Revenue’s folly, the Legislature substituted Section 10(3) vide the Karnataka Value Added Tax (Amendment) Act, 2015, (“the 2015 KVAT Amendment

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

Of the Department's clouded interpretation of the Centum

Bench: ANAND BYRAREDDY

reassessment orders from the end of 2014 denying input tax claimed by dealers to the extent it was availed 27 in a month other than the month in which the purchase invoices were raised. Thereafter, apparently, realising the Revenue’s folly, the Legislature substituted Section 10(3) vide the Karnataka Value Added Tax (Amendment) Act, 2015, (“the 2015 KVAT Amendment

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

4 This petition, having been heard and reserved on 21.9.2012 and coming on for Pronouncement of Orders this day, the court delivered the following: O R D E R The petition averments are as follows:- 2. The petitioners, who are husband and wife, claim that they are the owners of three residential sites, totally measuring 29500 square feet, culled

THE PR COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX vs. M/S ATRIA WIND (KADAMBUR) PVT LTD

Bench: CHIEF JUSTICE,C M JOSHI

4. The learned ITAT has allowed the appeal on two grounds. First it found that on merits, the assessee had complied with the conditions as stipulated under Section 47(xiii) (a) and (c) of the Act. The said conclusions are based on factual findings and we find no infirmity with the same. The AO had also rejected the assessee

THE PR.COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX vs. M/S. YOKOGAWA INDIA LTD

The appeal is dismissed

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

4) The Assessing Officer shall, notwithstanding anything contained in section 153 [or section 153B], pass the assessment order under sub- section (3) within one month from the end of the month in which,- (a) the acceptance is received; or (b) the period of filing of objections under sub-section (2) expires. (5) The Dispute Resolution Panel shall, in a case

M/S B L KASHYAP & SONS LTD vs. JOINT COMMISSIONER OF COMMERCIAL

Bench: S.SUJATHA

reassessment order under section 39[1] of the Act was - 4 - passed by the Respondent No.2 for the period April

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