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

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

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 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

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

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 INCOME TAX (CENTRAL) vs. M/S. DELHI INTERNATIONAL AIRPORT PVT. 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

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

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

M/S MYSORE POLYMERS & RUBBER PRODUCTS LTD vs. THE COMMISSIONER OF COMMERCIAL TAXES

In the result, writ appeal No

Bench: D.V.SHYLENDRA KUMAR,B.S.INDRAKALA

reassessment orders dated 29.7.2004 and particularly the assessment order dated 5.8.2004 in respect of years 2002-03 and 2003-04 respectively are not sustainable and liable to be quashed as the petitioner was not liable to pay initial tax under Section 6-B of the Act and allowed the writ petition. It is against this order of the learned Single

M/S T T K PRESTIGE LTD vs. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX

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

4. Schedule of Miscellaneous Expenses 5. Expenditure in foreign currency 6. Schedule of Rates and Taxes 7. Bad Debts 8. Provision for bad debts 9. Rent paid 10. Donations” This would indicate that on the query made by the AO with respect to logo commission expenditure, the explanation was offered by the Assessee which calls for presumption of application

SRI N GOVINDARAJU vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER

Appeal stands disposed of

Bench: S.SUJATHA,VINEET SARAN

section 45(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

THE COMMISIONER OF INCOME-TAX vs. M/S IBC KNOWLEDGE PARK PVT LTD

In the result, the appeals filed by the Revenue

Bench: B.V.NAGARATHNA,JAYANT PATEL

reassessment as such made under Section 158BD in respect of the assessee is not in accordance with law. We accordingly answer substantial question No.2 in favour of assessee. In view of our answer to the aforesaid question, we do not find it necessary to answer substantial question of law Nos.1, 3 and 4 in these appeals. The said questions

THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX vs. M/S. IBC KNOWLEDGE PARK PVT. LTD.,

In the result, the appeals filed by the Revenue

Bench: B.V.NAGARATHNA,JAYANT PATEL

reassessment as such made under Section 158BD in respect of the assessee is not in accordance with law. We accordingly answer substantial question No.2 in favour of assessee. In view of our answer to the aforesaid question, we do not find it necessary to answer substantial question of law Nos.1, 3 and 4 in these appeals. The said questions