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

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 6 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

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 vs. M/S MPHASIS LIMITED

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

7. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioners would at the outset contend that there is no element of mens rea involved in any of the transactions. It is at best an incorrect claim which would not amount to willful evasion of tax. He would contend that the moment search was conducted and the petitioners have been advised, they have

WIPRO LIMITED vs. THE JOINT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX

Bench: The Hon’Ble Mr. Justice Krishna S.Dixit Writ Petition No.20040/2019 (T-It) Between:

1),(2) and (3) shall be extended by twelve months. This would apply only when the reference is made in the course of proceeding for assessment or reassessment and not otherwise. • Sub-section (5) deals with time-limit to give effect to an order under section 250 or section 254 or section 260 or section 262 or section

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

7. A perusal of Section 12-A(1) of the KST Act will indicate that the outer limit for passing orders of assessment / re-assessment is 8 years from the expiry of the years, to which the tax relates. In the instant case, the period for which tax is sought to be levied / imposed by the respondents

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

Section 28(1) of the KIADB Act, proposed to acquire several items of land of Nagawara and Thanisandra villages for establishing an industrial area. The same was to be developed as such by M/s Manyata Promoters Private limited, the fourth respondent herein. It is the case of the petitioners that the notification showed the names of Ramaiah and Gopalappa

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

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

7,047/- and interest at `.4,240/- totaling to `.11,287/- and therefore, the first respondent proposed to reject petitioner’s return of income and estimated the 5 W.Ps.23858-862 & 31180-191/2013 suppressed sale turnover twice over to conclude reassessment under sub-section (1

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

PR COMMISSIONER OF vs. M/S GMR HYDERABAD

Appeals stand disposed of accordingly

Bench: S.SUJATHA,RAVI V HOSMANI

7. Distinguishing the judgment of Canara Housing Development Company supra, learned counsel submitted that the judgments of various Hon’ble High Courts on this aspect would indicate that the assessing officer while making assessment under - 20 - Section 153A of the Act could make addition only on the basis of some incriminating material unearthed during the course of search or requisition

PR. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (CENTRAL) vs. M/S. DELHI INTERNATIONAL AIRPORT PVT. LTD.,

Appeals stand disposed of accordingly

Bench: S.SUJATHA,RAVI V HOSMANI

7. Distinguishing the judgment of Canara Housing Development Company supra, learned counsel submitted that the judgments of various Hon’ble High Courts on this aspect would indicate that the assessing officer while making assessment under - 20 - Section 153A of the Act could make addition only on the basis of some incriminating material unearthed during the course of search or requisition

PR COMMISSIONER OF vs. M/S GMR HYDERABAD

Appeals stand disposed of accordingly

Bench: S.SUJATHA,RAVI V HOSMANI

7. Distinguishing the judgment of Canara Housing Development Company supra, learned counsel submitted that the judgments of various Hon’ble High Courts on this aspect would indicate that the assessing officer while making assessment under - 20 - Section 153A of the Act could make addition only on the basis of some incriminating material unearthed during the course of search or requisition

PR COMMISSIONER OF vs. M/S GMR HYDERABAD

Appeals stand disposed of accordingly

Bench: S.SUJATHA,RAVI V HOSMANI

7. Distinguishing the judgment of Canara Housing Development Company supra, learned counsel submitted that the judgments of various Hon’ble High Courts on this aspect would indicate that the assessing officer while making assessment under - 20 - Section 153A of the Act could make addition only on the basis of some incriminating material unearthed during the course of search or requisition

PR COMMISSIONER OF vs. M/S GMR HYDERABAD

Appeals stand disposed of accordingly

Bench: S.SUJATHA,RAVI V HOSMANI

7. Distinguishing the judgment of Canara Housing Development Company supra, learned counsel submitted that the judgments of various Hon’ble High Courts on this aspect would indicate that the assessing officer while making assessment under - 20 - Section 153A of the Act could make addition only on the basis of some incriminating material unearthed during the course of search or requisition

PR COMMISSIONER OF vs. M/S GMR HYDERABAD

Appeals stand disposed of accordingly

Bench: S.SUJATHA,RAVI V HOSMANI

7. Distinguishing the judgment of Canara Housing Development Company supra, learned counsel submitted that the judgments of various Hon’ble High Courts on this aspect would indicate that the assessing officer while making assessment under - 20 - Section 153A of the Act could make addition only on the basis of some incriminating material unearthed during the course of search or requisition

THE PR. COMMISIONER OF INCOME TAX vs. M/S. GMR INFRASTRUCTURE LTD

Appeals stand disposed of accordingly

Bench: S.SUJATHA,RAVI V HOSMANI

7. Distinguishing the judgment of Canara Housing Development Company supra, learned counsel submitted that the judgments of various Hon’ble High Courts on this aspect would indicate that the assessing officer while making assessment under - 20 - Section 153A of the Act could make addition only on the basis of some incriminating material unearthed during the course of search or requisition

PR COMMISSIONER OF vs. M/S GMR HYDERABAD

Appeals stand disposed of accordingly

Bench: S.SUJATHA,RAVI V HOSMANI

7. Distinguishing the judgment of Canara Housing Development Company supra, learned counsel submitted that the judgments of various Hon’ble High Courts on this aspect would indicate that the assessing officer while making assessment under - 20 - Section 153A of the Act could make addition only on the basis of some incriminating material unearthed during the course of search or requisition

THE PR. COMMISIONER INCOME TAX vs. M/S. GMR INFRASTRUCTURE LTD

Appeals stand disposed of accordingly

Bench: S.SUJATHA,RAVI V HOSMANI

7. Distinguishing the judgment of Canara Housing Development Company supra, learned counsel submitted that the judgments of various Hon’ble High Courts on this aspect would indicate that the assessing officer while making assessment under - 20 - Section 153A of the Act could make addition only on the basis of some incriminating material unearthed during the course of search or requisition

THE PR. COMMISIONER OF INCOME TAX vs. M/S. GMR INFRASTRUCTURE LTD

Appeals stand disposed of accordingly

Bench: S.SUJATHA,RAVI V HOSMANI

7. Distinguishing the judgment of Canara Housing Development Company supra, learned counsel submitted that the judgments of various Hon’ble High Courts on this aspect would indicate that the assessing officer while making assessment under - 20 - Section 153A of the Act could make addition only on the basis of some incriminating material unearthed during the course of search or requisition