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

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

2) The provisions of sub-section (1) as to the issue of notice shall be subject to the provisions of section 151.’ Sanction for issue of notice- “151. Specified authority for the purposes of section 148 and section 148A shall be— (i) Principal Commissioner or Principal Director or Commissioner or Director, if three years or less than three years have

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

Appeals are allowed in part

Bench: B.MANOHAR,VINEET SARAN

2. In the writ petitions, the appellants prayed for a writ of mandamus, directing the respondent No.1 to issue the Notifications superseding the Government Order FD.07.CET.09 dated 7.12.2011 exempting the whole of the tax payable by the first to third appellants and their sub- contractors under the provisions of the Karnataka Value Added Tax Act, 2003, (hereinafter referred

COMMISSIONER OF INCOME vs. M/S C RAMAIAH REDDY

In the result, we do not find any merit in the appeal

Bench: ALOK ARADHE,M.NAGAPRASANNA

reassessment to be completed under Section 143(3) read with Section 147, notice under Section 143(2) has to be issued within the prescribed limit. It was further held that no notice under Section 143(2) of the Act was issued, therefore, the proceedings are vitiated in law. However, the revenue was granted the liberty to take appropriate curative steps

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

5(2) of the Act. It is pertinent to note that though the aforesaid order could either have been revised by the Commissioner of Commercial Taxes under Section 22-A(2) of the KST Act or could have been challenged by the respondent in a writ petition before this Court. However, the respondent has not chosen to challenge the same

M/S JMC PROJECTS (INDIA) LTD vs. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA

Bench: ARAVIND KUMAR,VINEET SARAN

5) In computing the period of limitation for the purpose of sub-section (2), any period, during which any proceeding under this Section is stayed by an order or injunction of any court, shall be excluded. (6) For the purposes of this Section, ‘record’ shall include all records relating to any proceedings under this Act available at the time

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

The appeal is dismissed

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

5), the Assessing Officer shall, in conformity with the directions, complete, notwithstanding anything to the contrary contained in section 153 [or section 153B], the assessment without providing any further opportunity of being heard to the assessee, within one month from the end of the month in which such direction is received. (14) The Board may make rules for the purposes

SRI N GOVINDARAJU vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER

Appeal stands disposed of

Bench: S.SUJATHA,VINEET SARAN

2) of the Act and denying the benefit of indexation. The reassessment was completed on 4 total income of Rs.29,90,672/-, which was for reasons other than the one recorded in the notice. During the relevant period, the assessee had sold a plot of land measuring 12,430 sq. ft. for a consideration of Rs.74,58,000/-. The property

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 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

reassessment made on the assessee or any person in consequence of, or to give effect to any finding, direction or order made under sections 20, 21, 22, (22A), 23 or 24 or any judgment or order made by the Supreme Court, the High Court, or any other court.” 3. The wording in section 12-A(2) “in consequence

PR. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (CENTRAL) vs. SHRI. CHERIAN ABRAHAM

In the result, the appeal stands dismissed

Bench: S.SUJATHA,RAVI V HOSMANI

5. Learned counsel Sri.Chythanya.K.K., appearing for the respondent – assessee would submit that reply dated 08.10.2013 was submitted by the assessee pursuant to the notice issued by the department under Section 142[1] of the Act. The gist of the reply would indicate that the assessee had filed the return of income for the assessment year

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

Bench: CHIEF JUSTICE,C M JOSHI

5 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:34452-DB ITA No. 103 of 2025 the relevant assessment year could be made under Section 153A of the Act. 6. Insofar as the jurisdiction to reassess the income under Section 153A of the Act, without any incriminating material being found is concerned; the said issue is covered by the decision of the Supreme

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

M/S. THE KOLAR & CHICKBALLAPUR vs. THE ASST. COMMISSIONER

The appeal stands disposed of as indicated above

Bench: S.SUJATHA,RAVI V HOSMANI

5. Learned counsel appearing for the appellant/assessee submitted that the denial of set-off of carry forward of loss relying on Section 80 of the Act by all the authorities is untenable. Admittedly, in the case on hand, the loss for previous year i.e., assessment year 2005-06 has been quantified by the Assessing Officer which pre-supposes the determination

SRI AVINASH LALA CHANDANI vs. SRI P A NIRANJAN

Bench: The Hon'Ble Mr. Justice A.V.Chandrashekara

5 years after the death of the original tenant and that eviction is to be granted since 11 they have been living in a separate house continuously for 2 years after acquitting the same. 8. Learned Senior counsel Sri. Vivek Reddy representing the revision petitioners has submitted arguments at length placing reliance upon a decision of the Hon’ble Apex

PR. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-4 vs. RAJKUMAR C (HUF)

In the result, the order passed by the

Bench: ALOK ARADHE,R. NATARAJ

5. Learned counsel for the revenue submitted that the tribunal grossly erred in setting aside the order of the re-assessment solely on the ground that the Assessing Authority has not recorded any independent findings to revoke re-assessment proceedings and the same was initiated on account of directions issued by Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals

PR COMMISSIONER OF vs. M/S GMR HYDERABAD

Appeals stand disposed of accordingly

Bench: S.SUJATHA,RAVI V HOSMANI

2. Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal is right in quashing the assessment order by relying on the judgment of this Hon’ble High Court in the case of CIT V/s. Lancy Constructions [383 I TR 168]?” In ITA Nos.197/2021 to 199/2021: “Whether on the facts and circumstances of the case the Tribunal