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

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

4 - AND: 1 . COMMISSIONER TAX OFFICER AUDIT-6, DIVISIONAL VAT OFFICE, VANIJYA THERI BHAVANA, VI FLOOR, MAIDAN ROAD, MANGALORE-575001 2 . ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF COMMERCIAL TAXES LOCAL VAT OFFICE-260, MAIDAN ROAD, MANGALORE-575001 3 . STATE OF KARNATAKA DEPARTMENT OF FINANCE, REP BY ITS SECRETARY, AMBEDKAR VEEDHI, BENGALURU-560001 …RESPONDENTS [BY SRI T.K.VEDAMURTHY, AGA.] THESE WRIT PETITIONS ARE FILED UNDER

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

Bench: S.SUJATHA,JAYANT PATEL

5(2) of the CST Act, the concerned transactions are nothing but ‘sale’ falling under Section 2(29) of the KVAT Act 2003 and the turnovers qualifies as taxable turnover as per Section 2(34) of the KVAT Act and thus chargeable for VAT in the State. 21. Coming to the issue of levy of penalty and interest

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

In the result, the orders passed by the Assessing

Bench: SATISH CHANDRA SHARMA,V SRISHANANDA

reassessment as the case may be." 18. The dispute in this petition pertains to tax periods April 2006 to March 2008 and as on the date of re- assessment, the time limit for re-assessment for the disputed period was as under: Tax period Period of limitation Due date for completion of re-assessment April 2006 to March 5 years

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

Bench: CHIEF JUSTICE,C M JOSHI

5) The advance pricing agreement entered into shall be binding— (a) on the person in whose case, and in respect of the transaction in relation to which, the agreement has been entered into; and (b) on the Principal Commissioner or Commissioner, and the income-tax authorities subordinate to him, in respect of the said person and the said transaction

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

4.—For the removal of doubts, it is hereby clarified that the provisions of this section, as amended by the Finance Act, 2012, shall also be applicable for any assessment year beginning on or before the 1st day of April, 2012. Issue of notice where income has escaped assessment- 148.(1) Before making the assessment, reassessment or recomputation under section

COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX vs. SRI SAHAKARNAGAR CREDIT COOPERATIVE SOCIETY LTD

Appeals are allowed in part

Bench: B.MANOHAR,VINEET SARAN

4. The learned single Judge vide impugned order, disposed of the aforesaid writ petitions observing that the appellants prayer for exemption from levy of tax under the provisions of the KVAT Act relates to policy matters, which has to be considered by the Government of Karnataka and a decision to be taken thereof. The learned single Judge accordingly directed

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

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

The appeal is dismissed

Bench: N.KUMAR,RATHNAKALA

Section 45(4) of the Act is attracted and assessee is liable to pay capital gains. 5. Aggrieved by the said order of the assessing authority, the assessee preferred an appeal to the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals). The appellate authority confirmed the assessment made but for - 7 - statistical purpose the appeal was treated as dismissed, since despite the acceptance

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

Of the Department's clouded interpretation of the Centum

Bench: ANAND BYRAREDDY

5 of the 2015 KVAT Amendment Act substituted Section 10(3) of the KVAT Act. Section 10(3) as substituted by the 2015 KVAT Amendment Act now reads as follows: “Subject to input tax restrictions specified in sections 11,12,14,17,18 and 19, the net tax payable by a registered dealer in respect of each tax period shall

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

Of the Department's clouded interpretation of the Centum

Bench: ANAND BYRAREDDY

5 of the 2015 KVAT Amendment Act substituted Section 10(3) of the KVAT Act. Section 10(3) as substituted by the 2015 KVAT Amendment Act now reads as follows: “Subject to input tax restrictions specified in sections 11,12,14,17,18 and 19, the net tax payable by a registered dealer in respect of each tax period shall

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

Of the Department's clouded interpretation of the Centum

Bench: ANAND BYRAREDDY

5 of the 2015 KVAT Amendment Act substituted Section 10(3) of the KVAT Act. Section 10(3) as substituted by the 2015 KVAT Amendment Act now reads as follows: “Subject to input tax restrictions specified in sections 11,12,14,17,18 and 19, the net tax payable by a registered dealer in respect of each tax period shall

ACE DESIGNERS LIMITED vs. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA

Of the Department's clouded interpretation of the Centum

Bench: ANAND BYRAREDDY

5 of the 2015 KVAT Amendment Act substituted Section 10(3) of the KVAT Act. Section 10(3) as substituted by the 2015 KVAT Amendment Act now reads as follows: “Subject to input tax restrictions specified in sections 11,12,14,17,18 and 19, the net tax payable by a registered dealer in respect of each tax period shall

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

Of the Department's clouded interpretation of the Centum

Bench: ANAND BYRAREDDY

5 of the 2015 KVAT Amendment Act substituted Section 10(3) of the KVAT Act. Section 10(3) as substituted by the 2015 KVAT Amendment Act now reads as follows: “Subject to input tax restrictions specified in sections 11,12,14,17,18 and 19, the net tax payable by a registered dealer in respect of each tax period shall

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

Of the Department's clouded interpretation of the Centum

Bench: ANAND BYRAREDDY

5 of the 2015 KVAT Amendment Act substituted Section 10(3) of the KVAT Act. Section 10(3) as substituted by the 2015 KVAT Amendment Act now reads as follows: “Subject to input tax restrictions specified in sections 11,12,14,17,18 and 19, the net tax payable by a registered dealer in respect of each tax period shall

DEPA INDIA PRIVATE LTD. vs. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA

Of the Department's clouded interpretation of the Centum

Bench: ANAND BYRAREDDY

5 of the 2015 KVAT Amendment Act substituted Section 10(3) of the KVAT Act. Section 10(3) as substituted by the 2015 KVAT Amendment Act now reads as follows: “Subject to input tax restrictions specified in sections 11,12,14,17,18 and 19, the net tax payable by a registered dealer in respect of each tax period shall

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

Of the Department's clouded interpretation of the Centum

Bench: ANAND BYRAREDDY

5 of the 2015 KVAT Amendment Act substituted Section 10(3) of the KVAT Act. Section 10(3) as substituted by the 2015 KVAT Amendment Act now reads as follows: “Subject to input tax restrictions specified in sections 11,12,14,17,18 and 19, the net tax payable by a registered dealer in respect of each tax period shall

KAVERI PLASTO CONTAINERS PVT LTD vs. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA

Of the Department's clouded interpretation of the Centum

Bench: ANAND BYRAREDDY

5 of the 2015 KVAT Amendment Act substituted Section 10(3) of the KVAT Act. Section 10(3) as substituted by the 2015 KVAT Amendment Act now reads as follows: “Subject to input tax restrictions specified in sections 11,12,14,17,18 and 19, the net tax payable by a registered dealer in respect of each tax period shall