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

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

reassessment proceedings, on which much emphasis was placed by the learned Counsel for the Revenue on application of the Judgment to the facts of the case, it is clear that the assessments concluded in - 70 - preceding/subsequent years and the implication in the assessment order under 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

70, it was observed that the second proviso to section 34(3) of the Income-tax Act relating to any person other than the assessee is a stranger and has nothing to do with the assessment proceedings in which a finding or direction is given is ultra vires article 14 of the Constitution. 7. In Daffadar Bhagat Singh and Sons

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

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

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

reassessment under sub-section (1) of Section 39 of the Act, levying penalty and interest under sub-section (2) of Section 72 and Section 36 of the Act, respectively, for the assessment year 2005-06. 4. That notice was opposed by filing statement of objections Annexure ‘J’ dated 24.04.2013 inter alia contending that the notices in Form VAT-275 Annexures

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

Section 153A, however, the Assessing Officer has been given the power to assess or reassess the “total income” of the six assessment years in question in separate assessment orders. Once the assessment is - 70

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

Section 153A, however, the Assessing Officer has been given the power to assess or reassess the “total income” of the six assessment years in question in separate assessment orders. Once the assessment is - 70

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

Section 153A, however, the Assessing Officer has been given the power to assess or reassess the “total income” of the six assessment years in question in separate assessment orders. Once the assessment is - 70

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

70,670/- and made following additions: (a) disallowance of contributions made to funds -Rs.10,86,43,782/-. (b) additional loss claimed on sale of securities - Rs.8,28,65,052/-. 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

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 vs. M/S VESESH INFOTECHNICS LIMITEDD

Bench: B.MANOHAR,K.SREEDHAR RAO

reassessment, deduction under Section 80-IA was disallowed. 4. For the assessment year 2000-2001, the assessee filed the Income Tax returns on 30-11-2000 declaring the total income of Rs.1,11,76,800/- and claiming deduction of Rs.1,50,56,903/- under Section 80-IB and Rs.19,00,000/- towards the litigation expenditures. In the Profit and Loss

PRINCIPLE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX vs. SRI C.GOPALASWAMY

Bench: The Hon'Ble Mr Justice Hanchate Sanjeevkumar Miscellaneous First Appeal No.303 Of 2015 (Mv-D) C/W Miscellaneous First Appeal No.302 Of 2015(Mv-D) Miscellaneous First Appeal No.304 Of 2015 (Mv-D) Miscellaneous First Appeal No.305 Of 2015 (Mv-D)

Section-166 of the M.V. Act, by appellants/claimants 1 and 2 claiming compensation for the death of their son, daughter-in-law and grand children contending that the deceased was hale and healthy prior to the date of accident. He was a partner in Gurubasaveswara

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

The appeals are dismissed

Bench: ARAVIND KUMAR,N.KUMAR

70 explanation is bona fide and that all the facts relating to the same and material to the computation of his total income have been disclosed by him, for the purposes of section 271(1)(c),the amount added or disallowed in computing the total income is deemed to represent the concealed income. The penalty spoken of in Section

M/S MANYATA PROMOTERS PVT LTD vs. STATE OF KARNATAKA

In the result, the writ petition is rejected

Bench: The Hon’Ble Mr.Justice L Narayana Swamy Writ Petition No.56279 Of 2015 (Lb-Bbmp) Between: M/S.Manyata Promoters Pvt. Ltd., A Company Incorporated Under The Companies Act, 1956 & Having Its Office At First Floor, Classic Court No.9/1, Richmond Road, Bangalore 560 025 Represented By Its Authorized Signatory, Mr.B S Mohan.

70,489/- together with interest and penalty from 2008-09. (2) Quash order dated 24.8.2015 passed by Respondent No.3 Joint Commissioner – BBMP directing payment of difference amount at the rate of Rs.10 per sq. ft., based on notification dated 21.12.2012 issued by Respondent No.2 BBMP. (3) Quash the show cause notice dated5.10.2015 issued by R-4 Assistant Revenue Officer seeking

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

SMT JOSHNA RAJENDRA vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER

Accordingly, it stands dismissed

Bench: ARAVIND KUMAR,SURAJ GOVINDARAJ

Section 147 of the Act -: 4 :- and contending that there was no material evidence available on record to arrive at a conclusion that the income has escaped from assessment and as such, reopening of the reassessment was bad. However, the said contention came to be negatived by the Tribunal and insofar as issue relating to determination of the value

HINDUSTAN AERONAUTICS LIMITED 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.447,70

PR. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-4 vs. RAJKUMAR C (HUF)

In the result, the order passed by the

Bench: ALOK ARADHE,R. NATARAJ

70 ITR 74, 'INCOME TAX OFFICER VS. BACHU LAL KAPOOR', (1966) 60 ITR 74, 'COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX VS. ABDUL KHADER AHMED', (2006) 285 ITR 57. 7. On the other hand, learned counsel for the assessee submitted that the condition precedent for initiating re-assessment proceedings under Section 147 of the Act is that the Assessing Officer should have

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