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

The appeals are dismissed

Bench: ARAVIND KUMAR,N.KUMAR

69 decision in Dharmendra Textile’s case is only in so far as Sec. 11AC of Central Excise Act is concerned. 44. The Apex Court in the case of COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX ACT VS. ATUL MOHAN BINDAL, reported in (2009) 317 ITR 1 (SC) relying on Rajasthan Mill’s case explained the scope of Section

PR. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX vs. SMT. G. LAKSHMI ARUNA

Bench: K.SOMASHEKAR,UMESH M ADIGA

reassessment proceedings. Such an interpretation would be reading that judgment totally out of context in which the questions arose for decision in that case. It is neither desirable nor permissible to pick out a word or a sentence from the judgment of this Court, divorced from the context of the question under consideration and treat it to be the complete

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

Bench: K.SOMASHEKAR,UMESH M ADIGA

69 “37. The Tribunal and the High Court are of the opinion that it could only be prepared by the assessing officer during the course of the assessment proceedings under Section 158BC of the Act and not after the completion of the said proceedings. The Courts below have relied upon the limitation period provided in Section 158BE

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

DELL INDIA PVT LTD vs. THE JOINT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX

Bench: The Hon’Ble Mr.Justice Aravind Kumar

reassessment is proposed to be done and in the event of petitioner is able to establish, petitioner would be entitled for such allowances as is permissible under the Act. He would draw the attention of the court to 2nd proviso of section 147(1) of the Act to contend that it is incumbent upon the assessee to disclose fully

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 ORDERS PASSED UNDER KST ACT, 1957 FOR THE YEARS 1998-99 TO 2004-05 BY THE ASST.COMMISSIONER - 2 - OF COMMERCIAL TAXES (A & R) – 4.9, BANGALORE, R-3 HEREIN, DATED 15.04.2016 IN THE CASE OF THE PETITIONER VIDE ANNEXURES-K, L, M, N, P, Q & R & ETC., THIS W.P. IS BEING HEARD AND RESERVED ON 24.11.2022 COMING ON FOR PRONOUNCEMENT

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

REASSESSMENT ORDER DATED 31.05.2016 PASSED UNDER SECTION 39(1) OF THE KVAT ACT,2003 R/W SEC.36(1) AND 72(2) OF THE KVAT ACT 2003 BY THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF COMMERCIAL TAXES (AUDIT) - 2.1, BANGALORE FOR THE TAX PERIODS FROM APRIL 2013 TO MARCH 2014. THIS APPEAL, COMING ON FOR HEARING, THIS DAY, JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER

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

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

REASSESSMENT ORDER DATED 22.01.2020 PASSED IN ADCOM/ZONE-II/APP-1/SMR/CR-27/2019-20 BY ADDITIONAL COMMISSIONER OF COMMERCIAL TAXES, GANDHINAGAR BENGALURU, ORDER, SETTING ASIDE THE ORDER DATED 06.05.2016 PASSED IN VAT.AP.NO.65/15-16 ON THE FILE OF THE JOINT COMMISSIONER OF COMMERCIAL TAXES (APPEALS)- 1, SHANTHINAGAR, BENGALURU, PARTLY ALLOWING THE APPEAL FILED AGAINST ORDER DATED 10.06.2015 PASSED BY DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF COMMERCIAL TAXES, (ADUIT

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

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

SRI C M MAHADEVA S/O SRI MANCHE GOWDA vs. THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX

The appeal stands allowed

Bench: B.MANOHAR,VINEET SARAN

69 of the Act. Challenging the said order, the appellant filed an appeal before the Commissioner of Income-Tax (Appeals), which was partly allowed on merits, but the reopening under Sections 148/147 of the Act was held to be valid. Challenging the same, the revenue filed an appeal before the Tribunal, in which the assessee filed cross-objections and challenged

HINDUSTAN AERONAUTICS vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER

In the result, the appeal is disposed of

Bench: ALOK ARADHE,H.T. NARENDRA PRASAD

reassessment order itself as being without jurisdiction, was justified in adjudicating on the merits and remanding the matter to the Assessing officer for computation of deduction under section 35(1)(iv) of the Act? 2. The Tribunal was right in holding that expenses to the extent of Rs.269,18,47,858/- incurred towards research and development is capital in nature

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

69,21,058 (excluding interest) in respect of the assessment years for which the assessment is pending. 6. Apart from the likely demand to be raised mentioned above the assesses will also be liable for interest U/s 234B and Penalty, as per provisions of the Income Tax act which will increase the likely tax dues of the assesses over

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

Section 39(1) of the KVAT Act by the prescribed authority for the tax periods falling in the financial year 2011-12. 2. It is the case of the appellant that the appellant is a registered dealer under the KVAT Act and also registered dealer under Central Sales Tax Act, 1957, (hereinafter referred to as ‘CST Act’ for short

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

Section 39(1) of the KVAT Act by the prescribed authority for the tax periods falling in the financial year 2011-12. 2. It is the case of the appellant that the appellant is a registered dealer under the KVAT Act and also registered dealer under Central Sales Tax Act, 1957, (hereinafter referred to as ‘CST Act’ for short