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

The appeal is dismissed

Bench: N.KUMAR,RATHNAKALA

4 years period would not come in the way of such assessment or - 13 - reassessment, if income chargeable to tax has escaped assessment by reason of their failure on the part of the assessee to make a return under Section 139 or in response to a notice issued under Section 142(1) or Section

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. 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

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

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 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

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

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

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

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

Bench: S.SUJATHA

41 YEARS S/O LATE RAJAN LAL DIXIT ... PETITIONER [BY SRI V.RAGHURAMAN, ADV.] AND: 1. JOINT COMMISSIONER OF COMMERCIAL TAXES, (ADMN) DGSTO-5, VTK-2, KORAMANGALA, BENGALURU-560047 2. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF COMMERCIAL TAXES (A&R)-5.7, 6TH FLOOR, A-BLOCK, VTK-2, RAJENDRANAGARA KORAMANGALA, BENGALURU-560047 …RESPONDENTS [BY SRI T.K.VEDAMURTHY, AGA.) THESE WRIT PETITIONS ARE FILED UNDER ARTICLES

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

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

Appeals stand disposed of accordingly

Bench: S.SUJATHA,RAVI V HOSMANI

4. The appellants are companies claiming to be in the business of infrastructure facilities, provider-operating and developing airport and related infrastructure at International Airport [hereinafter referred to as ‘assessee’]. Assessment orders were passed under Section 143(3) read with 153A of the Act, in consequence to a search and seizure operation conducted at the premises of the assessee

PR COMMISSIONER OF vs. M/S GMR HYDERABAD

Appeals stand disposed of accordingly

Bench: S.SUJATHA,RAVI V HOSMANI

4. The appellants are companies claiming to be in the business of infrastructure facilities, provider-operating and developing airport and related infrastructure at International Airport [hereinafter referred to as ‘assessee’]. Assessment orders were passed under Section 143(3) read with 153A of the Act, in consequence to a search and seizure operation conducted at the premises of the assessee

PR COMMISSIONER OF vs. M/S GMR HYDERABAD

Appeals stand disposed of accordingly

Bench: S.SUJATHA,RAVI V HOSMANI

4. The appellants are companies claiming to be in the business of infrastructure facilities, provider-operating and developing airport and related infrastructure at International Airport [hereinafter referred to as ‘assessee’]. Assessment orders were passed under Section 143(3) read with 153A of the Act, in consequence to a search and seizure operation conducted at the premises of the assessee

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

Appeals stand disposed of accordingly

Bench: S.SUJATHA,RAVI V HOSMANI

4. The appellants are companies claiming to be in the business of infrastructure facilities, provider-operating and developing airport and related infrastructure at International Airport [hereinafter referred to as ‘assessee’]. Assessment orders were passed under Section 143(3) read with 153A of the Act, in consequence to a search and seizure operation conducted at the premises of the assessee

PR COMMISSIONER OF vs. M/S GMR HYDERABAD

Appeals stand disposed of accordingly

Bench: S.SUJATHA,RAVI V HOSMANI

4. The appellants are companies claiming to be in the business of infrastructure facilities, provider-operating and developing airport and related infrastructure at International Airport [hereinafter referred to as ‘assessee’]. Assessment orders were passed under Section 143(3) read with 153A of the Act, in consequence to a search and seizure operation conducted at the premises of the assessee