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

Bench: K.SOMASHEKAR,UMESH M ADIGA

63 held that the recording of satisfaction note is pre-requisite and the same must be prepared by the AO before the transmits the record to the other AO who has jurisdiction over such other person. Several High Courts have held that the provisions of Section 153C of the Act are pari materia to the provisions of Section 158BD

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

Bench: ARAVIND KUMAR,VINEET SARAN

63 and 64 be final. (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

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

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

Section 147 that the expenditure claimed towards licence fee/logo is in the nature of goodwill and having enduring benefit needs to be capitalized. This material found in the original records demonstrate that there was no live link between the reasons recorded and the material available on record except the audit query. 23. It may be apt to refer

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

THE STATE OF KARNATAKA vs. M/S. WS RETAIL SERVICES PRIVATE LIMITED

Appeals are dismissed and

Bench: ABHAY SHREENIWAS OKA (CJ),S SUNIL DUTT YADAV

reassessment order relating to the relevant tax periods / week / month of the year.” (a) Clauses 1.1 and 1.2 define arrears of tax for the purpose of the Scheme with regard to; Karnataka Value Added Tax Act, 2003 (for short ‘KVAT Act’) and Central Sales Tax Act, 1956 (for short ‘CST Act’) on the one hand and also for the purpose

THE PR.COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, vs. M/S CAE SIMULATION TECHNOLOGIES PVT LTD

Appeals are dismissed and

Bench: S.SUJATHA,VINEET KOTHARI

reassessment order relating to the relevant tax periods / week / month of the year.” (a) Clauses 1.1 and 1.2 define arrears of tax for the purpose of the Scheme with regard to; Karnataka Value Added Tax Act, 2003 (for short ‘KVAT Act’) and Central Sales Tax Act, 1956 (for short ‘CST Act’) on the one hand and also for the purpose

XIAOMI TECHNOLOGY INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX

In the result, I pass the following:

Bench: The Hon'Ble Mr.Justice S.R.Krishna Kumar

reassessment, it is necessary to attach provisionally any property belonging to the dealer. However, such satisfaction must be on some tangible material on objective facts with the Commissioner. In a given case, on the basis of the past conduct of the dealer and on the basis of some reliable information that the dealer is likely to defeat the claim

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

reassess total income of such other - 47 - person of such assessment year in the manner provided in Section 153A. 47. Chapter XIV-B consists of Section 158B to 158BH, inserted with effect from 01/07/1995, deals with special procedure for assessment in search cases. The Finance Act, 1995 inserted Chapter XIV-B in the Act, incorporating a new scheme of block

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

reassess total income of such other - 47 - person of such assessment year in the manner provided in Section 153A. 47. Chapter XIV-B consists of Section 158B to 158BH, inserted with effect from 01/07/1995, deals with special procedure for assessment in search cases. The Finance Act, 1995 inserted Chapter XIV-B in the Act, incorporating a new scheme of block

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

reassess total income of such other - 47 - person of such assessment year in the manner provided in Section 153A. 47. Chapter XIV-B consists of Section 158B to 158BH, inserted with effect from 01/07/1995, deals with special procedure for assessment in search cases. The Finance Act, 1995 inserted Chapter XIV-B in the Act, incorporating a new scheme of block

SRI N GOVINDARAJU vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER

Appeal stands disposed of

Bench: S.SUJATHA,VINEET SARAN

reassess any other income which has escaped assessment and which comes to his notice during the course of the proceedings. However, if after issuing a notice under section 148, he accepted the contention of the assessee and holds that the income which he has initially formed a reason to believe 23 had escaped assessment, has as a matter of fact

THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX vs. SHRI H E PANDURANGA

The appeal is disposed of

Bench: ALOK ARADHE,H.T. NARENDRA PRASAD

reassessment made protectively under Section 147 for the assessment years 1996-97 and 1997-98 by holding them as infructuous without going into the merits of the case when the issues with reference to unexplained cash credits of Rs.50 Lakhs and Rs.65,10,000/- have been found to be unexplained? (ii) Whether the Tribunal was correct in 3 applying

M/S KARNATAKA STATE INDUSTRIAL AND INFRASTRUCTURE DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION LTD vs. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX

The appeal is allowed and the impugned

Bench: SATISH CHANDRA SHARMA,V SRISHANANDA

Section 39(1) of the Karnataka Value Added Tax Act, 2003 [for short, 'the KVAT Act'] for the tax- period between April 2013 and March 2014. The appellant has failed in the reassessment proceedings on two issues viz., [i] the disallowance of Input Tax Credit [ITC] of Rs.36,600/- claimed by the appellant on the purchase from

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

The appeals are dismissed

Bench: ARAVIND KUMAR,N.KUMAR

63 been enacted to provide for a remedy for loss of revenue. The penalty under that provision is a civil liability. Wilful concealment is not an essential ingredient for attracting civil liability as is the case in the matter of prosecution under Section 276C of the Income-Tax Act.” ……..Dilip N. Shroff’s case (2007) 8 Scale

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

THE PR COMMISSIONER OF vs. M/S MPHASIS LIMITED

Bench: The Hon'Ble Mr. Justice M. Nagaprasanna

63 YEARS S/O LATE SUBHASH BAGARIA R/AT NO.6/3, 1ST CROSS ROAD, 9TH MAIN, RAJMAHAL VILLAS EXTENSION BENGALURU - 560 080. ... PETITIONER (BY SRI GAUTAM BHARADWAJ, ADVOCATE) AND: THE INCOME TAX DEPARTMENT BY THE DEPUTY DIRECTOR OF INCOME TAX (INV), UNIT 2(1) C.R.BUILDING (ANNEX), QUEENS ROAD BENGALURU - 560 001. ... RESPONDENT (BY SRI E.I.SANMATHI, ADVOCATE) 8 THIS CRIMINAL PETITION IS FILED UNDER

THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX vs. M/S SAPTHAGIRI ENTERPRISES

The appeal is allowed and the

Bench: B.MANOHAR,N.KUMAR

63,020/-. The assessment was completed under Section 143(3) of the Income Tax Act (‘the Act’ for short) on 27-02-1996 adopting the total income of Rs.39,81,250/-. Addition was made under Section 40A(3). While completing the assessment for the year 1997-98, the Assessing Officer found that the assessee has received enhanced price for rectified

THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX vs. M/S HIMALAYA DRUG COMPANY

Bench: S.SUJATHA,RAVI V HOSMANI

reassessment proceedings under Section 147/148 of the Act is concerned. The issue being purely one of law, the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal was not in error in permitting the assessee to raise such a point before it. 18. The Hon’ble High Court of Bombay in the case of Commissioner of Income tax-1, Nagpur vs. Lalitkumar Bardia reported