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

M/S. THE KOLAR & CHICKBALLAPUR vs. THE ASST. COMMISSIONER

The appeal stands disposed of as indicated above

Bench: S.SUJATHA,RAVI V HOSMANI

reassessment under Section 147, not a case for rectification wherein the tax liability has been enhanced. 6. Learned counsel for the revenue justifying the orders of the authorities submitted that Section 80 of the Act provides for submission of return for losses. In terms of the said Section, it is mandatory that the return for losses has to be filed

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

NATWAR AGARWAL & SONS (HUF) vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER

Bench: The Hon'Ble Mr.Justice S. Sunil Dutt Yadav

reassessment passed by the respondent Under Section 143(3) r/w Section 147 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (for short 'the Act') relevant to the assessment years 2011-12 and 2013-14 dated 24.12.2018 respectively and has sought for setting aside the consequential demand notices. 2. Since the impugned orders in both the writ petitions are based on an identical

THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX vs. M/S MAKINO ASIA PVT LTD

Bench: B.MANOHAR,DILIP B.BHOSALE

72 of the Act. The return filed 4 by the assessee was processed by the Assessing officer. The Assessing officer issued an intimation under Section 143(1) of the Act dated 19.09.2000. Though, an intimation was issued under Section 143(1), no further steps as contemplated by Section 143(2) and 143(3) were initiated/taken by the Assessing Officer

M/S STAPLES FUTURE OFFICE PRODUCTS PVT LTD vs. LOCAL VAT OFFICER-090

Bench: The Hon’Ble Mrjustice B.S.Patil W.P.Nos. 15976-987/2012 (T-Res) Between: M/S. Staples Future Office Products Pvt.Ltd., No.18/I, 3Rd Floor, 10Th Main, Ashoka Pillar Road, Jayanagar, 1St Block, Bangalore -560011. Represented By Its Senior Manager-Commercial Sri. Chetan Chaturvedi Aged About 35 Years. ... Petitioner (By Sri. Indrakumar, Sr. Counsel For M/S. E.I.Sanmathi) And: 1. Local Vat Officer-090 Malal Mahadeshwara Buildings, 1St Main Road, Chamarajpet, Bangalore —560 018. 2. The Deputy Commissioner Of Commercial Taxes (Audit-35) Dvo—3, 7Th Floor, Commercial Taxes Buildings, Gandhinagar, Bangalore - 560 009. ... Respondents (By Sri. K.M.Shivayogiswamy, Aga) These Writ Petitions Are Filed Under Articles 226 & 227 Of The Constitution Of India, Praying To Issue Writ Of Certiorari Or Directions In The Nature Of Certiorari Quashing The Order Dated

72(2) as well as Sections 36 and 37 of the KVAT Act for the period from 3 01.04.2007 to 31.03.2008. By the said notice, petitioner was notified that the details of classification of goods taxable at 4% and 12.5% had not been furnished and therefore it was proposed to determine the tax payable

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 the “total income” of the six assessment years in question in separate assessment orders. Once the assessment is - 70 - reopened, the Assessing Authority can take note of the income disclosed in the earlier return, any undisclosed income found during search or any other income which is not disclosed in the earlier return or which is not unearthed during

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 the “total income” of the six assessment years in question in separate assessment orders. Once the assessment is - 70 - reopened, the Assessing Authority can take note of the income disclosed in the earlier return, any undisclosed income found during search or any other income which is not disclosed in the earlier return or which is not unearthed during

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 the “total income” of the six assessment years in question in separate assessment orders. Once the assessment is - 70 - reopened, the Assessing Authority can take note of the income disclosed in the earlier return, any undisclosed income found during search or any other income which is not disclosed in the earlier return or which is not unearthed during

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

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:

72,53,709/- read with the conclusion of the assessment under Section 143(3) read with Section 144C on 31.01.2014 while determining taxable income of the asssessee at Rs.17,98,34,440/- which resulted in net tax liability at Rs.3,71,45,516/-. The addition/disallowance made to arrive at the taxable income. The respondent after assessing various issues relating

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

M/S. HINDUSTAN COCA COLA vs. STATE OF KARNATAKA

Of the Department's clouded interpretation of the Centum

Bench: ANAND BYRAREDDY

72(2) and 36(1) of the Act, 2003 and etc; IN W.P.Nos.3104-3115 OF 2016 BETWEEN: Ingram Micro India Private Limited, No.12, SG Business Center, New Hosur Road, Wilson Garden, Bangalore 560 027, Represented herein by its Director Tax, Mr. Vikash Khannah. …PETITIONER (By Shri K.P.Kumar, Senior Advocate for Shri Suryanarayana .T, Advocate) AND: 1. The State

ACE DESIGNERS LIMITED vs. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA

Of the Department's clouded interpretation of the Centum

Bench: ANAND BYRAREDDY

72(2) and 36(1) of the Act, 2003 and etc; IN W.P.Nos.3104-3115 OF 2016 BETWEEN: Ingram Micro India Private Limited, No.12, SG Business Center, New Hosur Road, Wilson Garden, Bangalore 560 027, Represented herein by its Director Tax, Mr. Vikash Khannah. …PETITIONER (By Shri K.P.Kumar, Senior Advocate for Shri Suryanarayana .T, Advocate) AND: 1. The State

INGRAM MICRO INDIA PVT. LTD. vs. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA

Of the Department's clouded interpretation of the Centum

Bench: ANAND BYRAREDDY

72(2) and 36(1) of the Act, 2003 and etc; IN W.P.Nos.3104-3115 OF 2016 BETWEEN: Ingram Micro India Private Limited, No.12, SG Business Center, New Hosur Road, Wilson Garden, Bangalore 560 027, Represented herein by its Director Tax, Mr. Vikash Khannah. …PETITIONER (By Shri K.P.Kumar, Senior Advocate for Shri Suryanarayana .T, Advocate) AND: 1. The State

INGRAM MICRO INDIA PVT.LTD. vs. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA

Of the Department's clouded interpretation of the Centum

Bench: ANAND BYRAREDDY

72(2) and 36(1) of the Act, 2003 and etc; IN W.P.Nos.3104-3115 OF 2016 BETWEEN: Ingram Micro India Private Limited, No.12, SG Business Center, New Hosur Road, Wilson Garden, Bangalore 560 027, Represented herein by its Director Tax, Mr. Vikash Khannah. …PETITIONER (By Shri K.P.Kumar, Senior Advocate for Shri Suryanarayana .T, Advocate) AND: 1. The State

M/S. HINDUSTAN COCA COLA vs. STATE OF KARNATAKA

Of the Department's clouded interpretation of the Centum

Bench: ANAND BYRAREDDY

72(2) and 36(1) of the Act, 2003 and etc; IN W.P.Nos.3104-3115 OF 2016 BETWEEN: Ingram Micro India Private Limited, No.12, SG Business Center, New Hosur Road, Wilson Garden, Bangalore 560 027, Represented herein by its Director Tax, Mr. Vikash Khannah. …PETITIONER (By Shri K.P.Kumar, Senior Advocate for Shri Suryanarayana .T, Advocate) AND: 1. The State

DEPA INDIA PRIVATE LTD. vs. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA

Of the Department's clouded interpretation of the Centum

Bench: ANAND BYRAREDDY

72(2) and 36(1) of the Act, 2003 and etc; IN W.P.Nos.3104-3115 OF 2016 BETWEEN: Ingram Micro India Private Limited, No.12, SG Business Center, New Hosur Road, Wilson Garden, Bangalore 560 027, Represented herein by its Director Tax, Mr. Vikash Khannah. …PETITIONER (By Shri K.P.Kumar, Senior Advocate for Shri Suryanarayana .T, Advocate) AND: 1. The State