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

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 under Section 143(3) read with Section 147 of the Act and by an order dated 31.12.2008 determined the taxable 4 income at Rs.12,10,51,209/- after making an addition of Rs.12,14,68

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

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

reassessment proceedings initiated under Section 147 is without jurisdiction and requires to be set aside. 27. As discussed in the preceding paragraphs, the Assessee has furnished detailed material on the query made by the AO. If such query made is answered by the Assessee, but the AO does not deliberate on that point in the assessment order and does

THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX vs. KENNAMETAL INC,USA

Bench: KRISHNA S DIXIT,RAMACHANDRA D. HUDDAR

68 of 2024 a period of limitation of one year from the end of the financial year in which the order of the Tribunal is received by the Principal Chief Commissioner, Chief Commissioner, Principal Commissioner, or Commissioner, as the case may be. 11. On the other hand, sub-section (3) is applicable to an assessment, reassessment

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

68 - against the assessee and seized goods having been released in favour of the assessee, notice could be issued under Section 153C of the Act to file returns for six years. The stand of the Revenue therein was that the Assessing Officer could still proceed under Section 153A of the Act in order to find out the source of income

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

68 - against the assessee and seized goods having been released in favour of the assessee, notice could be issued under Section 153C of the Act to file returns for six years. The stand of the Revenue therein was that the Assessing Officer could still proceed under Section 153A of the Act in order to find out the source of income

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

68 - against the assessee and seized goods having been released in favour of the assessee, notice could be issued under Section 153C of the Act to file returns for six years. The stand of the Revenue therein was that the Assessing Officer could still proceed under Section 153A of the Act in order to find out the source of income

THE PRL.COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX vs. SUNITA BAI

Bench: SREENIVAS HARISH KUMAR,RAGHVENDRA S. CHAUHAN

68 of the Act. Hence, the said amount was treated as undisclosed amount of the assessee by order dated 21.12.2009. 3. Since the assessee was aggrieved by the order dated 21.12.2009, she filed an appeal before the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) (‘the CIT’, for short). However, by order dated 20.08.2013, the learned CIT dismissed the said appeal. Therefore

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

The appeals are dismissed

Bench: ARAVIND KUMAR,N.KUMAR

Section 271(1)(c) is a civil liability. b) Mens rea is not an essential element for imposing penalty for breach of civil obligations or liabilities. c) Willful concealment is not an essential ingredient for attracting civil liability. 101 d) Existence of conditions stipulated in Section 271(1)(c) is a sine qua non for initiation of penalty proceedings under

SHRI N G CHANDRA REDDY (HUF) vs. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF

The appeal is disposed of in the above terms

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

reassessment proceedings, the Assessing Officer held that the assessee had handed over possession of the land to the builder for the purpose of construction of flats. It was further held that the assessee had executed a registered General Power of Attorney (GPA) in favour of the builder on the date of the JDA. According to the Assessing Officer, the execution

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

THE PR. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIT(A) vs. M/S TAVANT TECHNOLOGIES INDIA PVT LTD

Bench: The Hon'Ble Mr Justice H.P.Sandesh Criminal Revision Petition No. 183 Of 2021 Between: 1. S. Prakash S/O Subramanya Aged About 40 Years R/At Gowli Camp Agasavalli Village Hoihole Post Shivamogga Taluk-577 202. …Petitioner

Section 138 of N.I. Act contend that this petitioner had purchased steel worth of Rs.3,68,574/- on 23.02.2016 from the complainant and complainant issued bill No.916 to the accused. When the request was made to pay the amount, the accused issued cheque dated 11.08.2016 for the above amount and when the same was presented, returned with an endorsement ‘exceeds

HOGETHOPPALU VISHWANATH PRATHIBA vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER

Bench: The Hon'Ble Mr Justice H.P.Sandesh Criminal Revision Petition No. 183 Of 2021 Between: 1. S. Prakash S/O Subramanya Aged About 40 Years R/At Gowli Camp Agasavalli Village Hoihole Post Shivamogga Taluk-577 202. …Petitioner

Section 138 of N.I. Act contend that this petitioner had purchased steel worth of Rs.3,68,574/- on 23.02.2016 from the complainant and complainant issued bill No.916 to the accused. When the request was made to pay the amount, the accused issued cheque dated 11.08.2016 for the above amount and when the same was presented, returned with an endorsement ‘exceeds

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

M/S ANS CONSTRUCTIONS LTD vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF COMMERCIAL

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

reassessment orders as well as the - 7 - demand notices dated 17.05.2016 and 18.05.2016 relating to the assessment years 2012-13 and 2013-14 respectively. Though the petitioner has sought for a direction to the respondent to allow the deduction of sub-contractor for the assessment year in question, the same is not pressed. Accordingly, the said prayer is dismissed

HEWLETT PACKARD FINANCIAL SERVICES INDIA PRIVATE vs. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA

Bench: S.SUJATHA,JAYANT PATEL

reassessment orders. The reasons for not having disclosed such huge taxable turnover is not made known except stating that the same is detected during the periodic review. The periodic review for the years 2005- 2006k, 2006-2007, 2007-2008, 2008-2009, 2009- 2010, 2010-2011, 2011-2012 and 2012-2013 has taken place after March 2013. This means

THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX vs. M/S IBM GLOBAL SERVICES INDIA PVT LTD

Appeals are dismissed

Bench: The Hon'Ble Mr. Justice H.P. Sandesh

68 YEARS, SINCE DECEASED BY HIS LRS SMT. KAMALAMMA W/O LATE S.S. VEERAPPA AGED ABOUT 65 YEARS, 1(b) SMT. SACHITRA D/O LATE S.S. VEERAPPAA AGED ABOUT 38 YEARS, 1(c) SMT. PAVITHRA D/O LATE S.S. VEERAPPAA AGED ABOUT 34 YEARS, 1(d) SRI SUNIL S/O LATE S.S. VEERAPPAA AGED ABOUT 30 YEARS, 1(e) SRI ANIL S/O LATE