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

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

Appeals are allowed in part

Bench: B.MANOHAR,VINEET SARAN

5 of the KST Act on the sale of machinery and equipments worth more than Rs.1 crore in each individual sale invoice and on the sale of construction material worth more than Rs.25 lakhs in each sale invoice 7 effected to a dealer undertaking an infrastructure project in the state or any other dealer authorized to execute the works

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

reassessment or recomputation under section 147, and subject to the provisions of section 148A, the Assessing Officer shall 16 serve on the assessee a notice, along with a copy of the order passed, if required, under clause (d) of section 148A, requiring him to furnish within such period, as may be specified in such notice, a return of his income

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

Bench: CHIEF JUSTICE,C M JOSHI

reassessment of income for - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:34452-DB ITA No. 103 of 2025 the relevant assessment year could be made under Section

THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX vs. KENNAMETAL INC,USA

Bench: KRISHNA S DIXIT,RAMACHANDRA D. HUDDAR

5) is not applicable. 14. Sub-section (6) of Section 153 mandates that where an assessment, reassessment, or recomputation is to be made

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

Bench: S.SUJATHA

5. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner reiterating the grounds urged in the writ petitions, would contend that subsequent to dropping of the proceedings initiated under Section 39[2] of the Act by the Respondent No.2, notices were issued on 25.06.2016 under Section 39[2][e] of the Act by the very same Authority, to initiate 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

reassessment as the case may be." Section 40 of the Act was amended by an amending Act No.17 of 2012 w.e.f. 01.04.2012 and the period of re- assessment was enlarged to 5

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

Bench: K.SOMASHEKAR,UMESH M ADIGA

reassessment under Section 147 read with Section 144 by bringing to tax all the income which formed part of 6 total income under the original assessment order passed. However, it was noticed that though the assessment proceedings was initiated by issue of notice under Section 143(2), The Tribunal vide said order also knocked down the assessment proceedings completed under

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

Appeals stand disposed of accordingly

Bench: S.SUJATHA,RAVI V HOSMANI

5. Learned counsel for the Revenue argued that the conditions for issuance of notice under Section 153A of the Act being well settled, merely on the ground that no incriminating material was seized by the Department, the proceedings initiated under Section 153A of the Act cannot be held to be unjustifiable; the finding of the Tribunal, runs contrary

PR COMMISSIONER OF vs. M/S GMR HYDERABAD

Appeals stand disposed of accordingly

Bench: S.SUJATHA,RAVI V HOSMANI

5. Learned counsel for the Revenue argued that the conditions for issuance of notice under Section 153A of the Act being well settled, merely on the ground that no incriminating material was seized by the Department, the proceedings initiated under Section 153A of the Act cannot be held to be unjustifiable; the finding of the Tribunal, runs contrary

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

5. Learned counsel for the Revenue argued that the conditions for issuance of notice under Section 153A of the Act being well settled, merely on the ground that no incriminating material was seized by the Department, the proceedings initiated under Section 153A of the Act cannot be held to be unjustifiable; the finding of the Tribunal, runs contrary

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

Appeals stand disposed of accordingly

Bench: S.SUJATHA,RAVI V HOSMANI

5. Learned counsel for the Revenue argued that the conditions for issuance of notice under Section 153A of the Act being well settled, merely on the ground that no incriminating material was seized by the Department, the proceedings initiated under Section 153A of the Act cannot be held to be unjustifiable; the finding of the Tribunal, runs contrary

PR COMMISSIONER OF vs. M/S GMR HYDERABAD

Appeals stand disposed of accordingly

Bench: S.SUJATHA,RAVI V HOSMANI

5. Learned counsel for the Revenue argued that the conditions for issuance of notice under Section 153A of the Act being well settled, merely on the ground that no incriminating material was seized by the Department, the proceedings initiated under Section 153A of the Act cannot be held to be unjustifiable; the finding of the Tribunal, runs contrary

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

Appeals stand disposed of accordingly

Bench: S.SUJATHA,RAVI V HOSMANI

5. Learned counsel for the Revenue argued that the conditions for issuance of notice under Section 153A of the Act being well settled, merely on the ground that no incriminating material was seized by the Department, the proceedings initiated under Section 153A of the Act cannot be held to be unjustifiable; the finding of the Tribunal, runs contrary

PR COMMISSIONER OF vs. M/S GMR HYDERABAD

Appeals stand disposed of accordingly

Bench: S.SUJATHA,RAVI V HOSMANI

5. Learned counsel for the Revenue argued that the conditions for issuance of notice under Section 153A of the Act being well settled, merely on the ground that no incriminating material was seized by the Department, the proceedings initiated under Section 153A of the Act cannot be held to be unjustifiable; the finding of the Tribunal, runs contrary

PR COMMISSIONER OF vs. M/S GMR HYDERABAD

Appeals stand disposed of accordingly

Bench: S.SUJATHA,RAVI V HOSMANI

5. Learned counsel for the Revenue argued that the conditions for issuance of notice under Section 153A of the Act being well settled, merely on the ground that no incriminating material was seized by the Department, the proceedings initiated under Section 153A of the Act cannot be held to be unjustifiable; the finding of the Tribunal, runs contrary

PR COMMISSIONER OF vs. M/S GMR HYDERABAD

Appeals stand disposed of accordingly

Bench: S.SUJATHA,RAVI V HOSMANI

5. Learned counsel for the Revenue argued that the conditions for issuance of notice under Section 153A of the Act being well settled, merely on the ground that no incriminating material was seized by the Department, the proceedings initiated under Section 153A of the Act cannot be held to be unjustifiable; the finding of the Tribunal, runs contrary

PR COMMISSIONER OF vs. M/S GMR HYDERABAD

Appeals stand disposed of accordingly

Bench: S.SUJATHA,RAVI V HOSMANI

5. Learned counsel for the Revenue argued that the conditions for issuance of notice under Section 153A of the Act being well settled, merely on the ground that no incriminating material was seized by the Department, the proceedings initiated under Section 153A of the Act cannot be held to be unjustifiable; the finding of the Tribunal, runs contrary