THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX GULBARGA vs. M/S MANJUNATHA COTTON AND GINNING FACTORY

The appeals are dismissed

Bench: ARAVIND KUMAR,N.KUMAR

5 SCC 361 has analysed the legal position in the correct perspectives. The reference is answered.” 40. In the Dharmendra’s case the apex Court was dealing with the penalty provisions contained in the Central Excise Act, 1944, Sec. 11AC. They have referred to penalty provision in the Income Tax Act 271(1)(c). After referring to various judgments

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

1) of section 151A of the Income Tax Act, in the opening portion, after the words and figures “issuance of notice under section 148”, the words, figures and letter “or conducting of enquiries or issuance 21 of show-cause notice or passing of order under section 148A” are inserted. 4. Despite the substituted sections 147 to 151 of the Income

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 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

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

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 5 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

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

Appeals are allowed in part

Bench: B.MANOHAR,VINEET SARAN

1. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA VIDHANA SOUDHA BANGALORE-560001 REPRESENTED BY THE PRINCIPAL SECRETARY TO THE GOVERNMENT 2. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF COMMERCIAL TAXES (AUDIT) - 1.3, D.V.O-1 T.T.M.C., BMTC BUILDING, 5TH FLOOR, YESWANTPUR, BANGALORE 560022 3. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF COMMERCIAL TAXES (INTERNAL AUDIT & INSPECTION) VANIJYA THERIGE BHAVAN, 60 FEET ROAD, GOPALAGOWDA LAYOUT, SHIMOGA 577205 ... RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. K.M. SHIVAYOGISWAMY

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

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

5 W.Ps.23858-862 & 31180-191/2013 suppressed sale turnover twice over to conclude reassessment under sub-section (1) of Section

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

5. We shall now take up for consideration whether, in the facts and circumstances of the case, the assessment can be made under the proviso on the assessee “in consequence of or to give effect to any finding or direction in an order under section 31, section 33, section 33A, section 33B, section 66, or section

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

5 extent of lands, consisting of 12 sites in all, after setting apart areas for formation of roads and other infrastructure. The village panchayath is said to have approved the layout and is said to have assigned site numbers, while assessing the same to property tax. The petitioner no.1 claims to have purchased site bearing no.10/A in plot no.10, measuring

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

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. 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

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