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

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 or direction contained in an order under Section 31, Section 33, Section 33-A, Section 33-B, Section 66 or Section 66- A.” 11. The assessment of tax had according to the law at the relevant time in force, ordinarily

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

66 years, Both are proprietors M/s. Viswabandhu press And 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 and Industries 2 Department, Vikasa Soudha, Dr.Ambedkar Veedhi, Bangalore – 560 001. 2. Karnataka Industrial

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 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” to completed assessment proceedings. (vi) Insofar as pending assessments are concerned, the jurisdiction to make the original assessment and the assessment under Section 153A merges into one. Only one assessment shall be made separately for each assessment year on the basis of the - 66 - finding of the search and any other material existing or brought on record

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” to completed assessment proceedings. (vi) Insofar as pending assessments are concerned, the jurisdiction to make the original assessment and the assessment under Section 153A merges into one. Only one assessment shall be made separately for each assessment year on the basis of the - 66 - finding of the search and any other material existing or brought on record

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” to completed assessment proceedings. (vi) Insofar as pending assessments are concerned, the jurisdiction to make the original assessment and the assessment under Section 153A merges into one. Only one assessment shall be made separately for each assessment year on the basis of the - 66 - finding of the search and any other material existing or brought on record

M/S SILICON ESTATES vs. THE ADDITIONAL COMMISSIONER OF

In the result, the impugned orders of the

Bench: B.V.NAGARATHNA,J.M.KHAZI

SECTION 66(1) OF THE KVAT ACT, 2003 AGAINST THE ORDER DATED 22.01.2020 PASSED IN NO.ADCOM/ZONE-II/APP-1/SMR/CR-03/2019-20 ON THE FILE OF THE ADDITIONAL COMMISSIONER OF COMMERCIAL TAXES ZONE-II, GANDHINAGAR BANGALORE SETTING ASIDE THE ORDER DATED 06.05.2016 PASSED IN VAT AP NO.59/15-16 BY THE JOINT COMMISSIONER OF COMMERCIAL TAXES (APPEALS) 1 BANGALORE PARTLY ALLOWING THE APPEAL FILED AGAINST THE REASSESSMENT

SMT.SUNITHA vs. SRI LAXMAN B KUNDAR

Bench: B.V.NAGARATHNA,ASHOK G.NIJAGANNAVAR

SECTION 173(1) OF MV ACT AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED 19.01.2016 PASSED IN MVC NO.319/2013 ON THE FILE OF THE SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE, MEMBER, ADDITIONAL MACT, KUNDAPURA, PARTLY ALLOWING THE CLAIM PETITION FOR COMPENSATION AND SEEKING ENHANCEMENT OF COMPENSATION. THESE APPEALS COMING ON FOR HEARING ON INTERLOCUTORY APPLICATIONS THIS DAY, NAGARATHNA J., DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING

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

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

SRI AVINASH LALA CHANDANI vs. SRI P A NIRANJAN

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

66 YEARS, 2. SMT. SUMITHA LAL CHANDANI W/O SRI. AVINASH LAL CHANDANI, AGED ABOUT 50 YEARS, 3. MAS. ANIL S/O SRI. AVINASH LAL CHANDANI, AGED ABOUT 26 YEARS, 4. MS. SUSHMITHA D/O SRI. AVINASH LAL CHANDANI, AGED ABOUT 18 YEARS, ALL THE RESPONDENTS ARE R/AT NO. E-10, NEW NO.23, FIRST FLOOR, SHANKAR MUTT MAIN ROAD, SHANKARPURAM, BANGALORE 560004 ... PETITIONERS

SHRI. N.G. MEHARWADE vs. THE ADDL. COMMISSIONER OF COMML.

The appeal is dismissed on devoid of merits

Bench: H.T.NARENDRA PRASAD,B.VEERAPPA

66(1)OF THE KVAT ACT 2003, PRAYING TO FORMULATE THE SUBSTANTIAL QUESTIONS OF LAW AND TO ALLOW THE APPEAL AND SET ASIDE THE ORDER OF THE 1ST RESPONDENT BEARING NO.TNO.322/2014-18 ADCOM/ZONE-II/DWD/SMR/CR-41/2016/17 DATED 17.01.2018 VIDE ANNEXURE-A FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2011-12. THIS APPEAL COMING ON FOR ADMISSION THIS DAY, B.VEERAPPA J., DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: JUDGMENT The present

M/S PRAGATHI KRISHNA GRAMIN BANK vs. THE JOINT COMMISIONER

The appeal is dismissed on devoid of merits

Bench: H.B.PRABHAKARA SASTRY,VINEET KOTHARI

66(1)OF THE KVAT ACT 2003, PRAYING TO FORMULATE THE SUBSTANTIAL QUESTIONS OF LAW AND TO ALLOW THE APPEAL AND SET ASIDE THE ORDER OF THE 1ST RESPONDENT BEARING NO.TNO.322/2014-18 ADCOM/ZONE-II/DWD/SMR/CR-41/2016/17 DATED 17.01.2018 VIDE ANNEXURE-A FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2011-12. THIS APPEAL COMING ON FOR ADMISSION THIS DAY, B.VEERAPPA J., DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: JUDGMENT The present

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 66(1) OF THE KVAT ACT, 2003 AGAINST THE ORDER DATED 10.03.2021 PASSED IN NO.ADCOM/ZONE-II/APP- 2/SMR/CR-29/2018-19 ON THE FILE OF THE ADDITIONAL COMMISSIONER OF COMMERCIAL TAXES ZONE-II, GANDHINAGAR BANGALORE, REJECTING THE APPLICATION FILED SEEKING RECTIFICATION OF THE REVISIONAL ORDER DATED 11.12.2018 PASSED BY ADDITIONAL COMMISSIONER OF COMMERCIAL TAXES ZONE-II, BENGALURU IN NO. ADCOM/ZONE-II

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 MAHENDRA APPLIANCES vs. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA

Bench: K.GOVINDARAJULU,D.V.SHYLENDRA KUMAR

66(1) of the Karnataka Value Added Tax Act. 2003 [for short, the Acti by a dealer who deals with home appliances. The appeal is directed against the order dated 18 12 2010 passed by the Additional Commissioner of Commercial Taxes, Zone I, l3angalore in proceedings No ZAC l/BNG/SMR 18/2010 11, exercising suo moW revisioiial juridietion. rcvisiIu the order passed

THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIT(A) vs. M/S HEWLETT PACKARD GLOBALSOFT PVT LTD

Appeals are hereby dismissed by

Bench: ARAVIND KUMAR,VINEET SARAN

1], which reads as follows xxx remain the same.” 14. The phrase ‘reason to believe’ found in Section 147 of the Act came up for scrutiny before the Hon’ble Apex Court in the matter of ASSISTANT 20 COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX vs RAJESH JHAVERI reported in (2007) 291 ITR 500 (SC) and held that the said expression cannot