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

Bench: K.SOMASHEKAR,UMESH M ADIGA

65 same, but before issuance of notice to the 'such other person' under Section 153C. Even in a case, where the Assessing Officer of both the persons is the same and assuming that no handing over of documents is required, the recording of 'satisfaction' is a must, as, that is the foundation, upon which the subsequent proceedings against the 'other

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

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

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

65,335/- on the premise that turnover recorded in loose slips was suppressed. In other words, the transactions forming 3 W.Ps.23858-862 & 31180-191/2013 part of sales recorded in loose slips had not been declared. That order when carried in an appeal before the statutory authority, was dismissed, leading to a second appeal before the Karnataka Appellate Tribunal

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

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 PR.COMMISSIONER OF vs. M/S MAHAVEER CALYX

In the result, the orders passed by the Assessing

Bench: SATISH CHANDRA SHARMA,V SRISHANANDA

65(1) of the Karnataka Value Added Tax Act, 2003 hereinafter referred to as 'the Act' for short) has been filed against the order dated 31.07.2017 passed by the Karnataka Appellate Tribunal by which the Tribunal has upheld the common order dated 27.12.2012 passed by the Joint Commissioner of Commercial Taxes (Appeals) (hereinafter referred to as 'the Appellate Authority

THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX vs. SMT. SUNITA TONY

In the result, all the appeals which are filed by

Bench: B.MANOHAR,VINEET SARAN

SECTION 173(1) OF MV ACT AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED:3.9.2013 PASSED IN MVC NO.3836/2011 ON THE FILE OF THE II ADDITIONAL SMALL CAUSES JUDGE AND XXVIII ACMM, MACT, BANGALORE AWARDING COMPENSATION OF RS.11,11,000/- WITH INTEREST AT 6% P.A. FROM THE DATE OF PETITION TILL THE DATE OF DEPOSIT. THESE APPEALS COMING ON FOR ORDERS THIS

SHRI. MUNINAGA REDDY vs. THE ASST. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME -TAX CIRCLE 6 (1)

Appeals are allowed to the aforesaid extent

Bench: ARAVIND KUMAR,JAYANT PATEL

65 YEARS S/O SRI. MUNISWAMY REDDY NO.45, 3RD ‘B’ MAIN 4TH CROSS, 3RD BLOCK KALYAN NAGAR BANGALORE-560 043. ….APPELLANT (BY SRI.P. DINESH FOR SRI. S. PARTHASARATHI, ADVS.) AND: THE ASST. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE 6(1) INCOME TAX OFFICES ROOM NO.732, BMTC BUILDING 80 FT. ROAD, 6TH BLOCK KORAMANGALA BANGALORE-560095 …RESPONDENT (BY SRI.K.V. ARAVIND, ADVOCATE) THESE APPEALS

M/S THE KARNATAKA STATE CO-OPERATIVE APEX BANK vs. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX

In the result, the appeal is disposed of

Bench: ALOK ARADHE,HEMANT CHANDANGOUDAR

65,052/-. Being aggrieved, the assessee filed an appeal before the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) who by an order dated 31.07.2014 partly allowed the appeal. The assessee thereupon filed an appeal before the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (hereinafter referred to as 'the tribunal' for short). The tribunal by an order dated 29.02.2016 inter alia allowed the claim

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

Bench: ARAVIND KUMAR,VINEET SARAN

65 of the KVAT Act provides for Revision by High Court in certain cases. The Legislature, by the Amendment Act No.4 of 2006, besides making several other amendments under the KVAT Act, also inserted a new Section 63A of the KVAT Act providing for Revisional powers of Joint Commissioner, which were in the same terms as provided for 7 Additional

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

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

1) of section 142 or section 148 or to disclose fully and truly all material facts necessary for his assessment for that assessment year. - 53 - Provided further that nothing contained in the first proviso shall apply in a case where any income in relation to any asset [including financial interest in any entity] located outside India, chargeable

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

SONAL APPAREL PRIVATE LTD., vs. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA

Of the Department's clouded interpretation of the Centum

Bench: ANAND BYRAREDDY

1, 2015, the Karnataka Value Added Tax (Amendment) Act, 2015 (“the 2015 KVAT Amendment Act” for short) was brought into force. As proposed in the Karnataka State Budget for the years 2015-16 Section 5 of the 2015 KVAT Amendment Act substituted Section 10(3) of the KVAT Act. Section 10(3) as substituted by the 2015 KVAT Amendment

ACE DESIGNERS LIMITED vs. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA

Of the Department's clouded interpretation of the Centum

Bench: ANAND BYRAREDDY

1, 2015, the Karnataka Value Added Tax (Amendment) Act, 2015 (“the 2015 KVAT Amendment Act” for short) was brought into force. As proposed in the Karnataka State Budget for the years 2015-16 Section 5 of the 2015 KVAT Amendment Act substituted Section 10(3) of the KVAT Act. Section 10(3) as substituted by the 2015 KVAT Amendment

INGRAM MICRO INDIA PVT. LTD. vs. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA

Of the Department's clouded interpretation of the Centum

Bench: ANAND BYRAREDDY

1, 2015, the Karnataka Value Added Tax (Amendment) Act, 2015 (“the 2015 KVAT Amendment Act” for short) was brought into force. As proposed in the Karnataka State Budget for the years 2015-16 Section 5 of the 2015 KVAT Amendment Act substituted Section 10(3) of the KVAT Act. Section 10(3) as substituted by the 2015 KVAT Amendment

INGRAM MICRO INDIA PVT.LTD. vs. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA

Of the Department's clouded interpretation of the Centum

Bench: ANAND BYRAREDDY

1, 2015, the Karnataka Value Added Tax (Amendment) Act, 2015 (“the 2015 KVAT Amendment Act” for short) was brought into force. As proposed in the Karnataka State Budget for the years 2015-16 Section 5 of the 2015 KVAT Amendment Act substituted Section 10(3) of the KVAT Act. Section 10(3) as substituted by the 2015 KVAT Amendment

M/S. HINDUSTAN COCA COLA vs. STATE OF KARNATAKA

Of the Department's clouded interpretation of the Centum

Bench: ANAND BYRAREDDY

1, 2015, the Karnataka Value Added Tax (Amendment) Act, 2015 (“the 2015 KVAT Amendment Act” for short) was brought into force. As proposed in the Karnataka State Budget for the years 2015-16 Section 5 of the 2015 KVAT Amendment Act substituted Section 10(3) of the KVAT Act. Section 10(3) as substituted by the 2015 KVAT Amendment