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

Bench: K.SOMASHEKAR,UMESH M ADIGA

72 appellant/revenue does not have any substance calling interference of this Court and the appeal being devoid of merits is liable to be dismissed. 40. In support of his contentions, learned counsel for the respondent has relied on the following decisions: 1) 2014 SCC OnLine All 16050: (2014) 365 ITR 411: (2014) 270 CTR 447 Commissioner Of Income

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

Bench: K.SOMASHEKAR,UMESH M ADIGA

72 the course of search proceedings, various documents belonging to the assessee were assessed and certain incriminating materials were found and seized during the course of search against the respondent / assessee. Consequently, the assessing officer of the searched person issued notice under Section 153C against the assessee for the assessment years 2005-2006 to 2010-2011 and a notice 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

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

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

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

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

1) are, that the Assessing Officer is satisfied that any valuable assets or books of account or document seized or requisitioned belongs to a person other than the person referred in section 153A of the Act. In such a case, he shall handover to the Assessing Officer having jurisdiction of such other person, the books of account or document

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

1) are, that the Assessing Officer is satisfied that any valuable assets or books of account or document seized or requisitioned belongs to a person other than the person referred in section 153A of the Act. In such a case, he shall handover to the Assessing Officer having jurisdiction of such other person, the books of account or document

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

1) are, that the Assessing Officer is satisfied that any valuable assets or books of account or document seized or requisitioned belongs to a person other than the person referred in section 153A of the Act. In such a case, he shall handover to the Assessing Officer having jurisdiction of such other person, the books of account or document

M/S ING VYSYA BANK LIMITED vs. THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX

In the result appeal fails and it is hereby

Bench: ARAVIND KUMAR,AJIT J GUNJAL

72, ST.MARK’S ROAD BANGALORE-560 001 NOW REPRESENTED BY ITS MANAGING DIRECTOR SRI.SHAILENDRA BHANDARI S/O SRI DILIP BHANDARI AGED ABOUT 52 YEARS .. APPELLANT (BY SRI.G.SARANGAN, LEARNED SENIOR COUNSEL FOR SMT.VANI H. ADVOCATE) AND: 1. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX BANGALORE-I FIRST FLOOR, CR BUILDINGS QUEENS ROAD, BANGALORE-560 001 2. UNION OF INDIA MINISTRY OF FINANCE DEPARTMENT OF REVENUE

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

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

M/S. JINDAL ALUMINIUM LIMITED vs. THE ADDITIONAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX

Bench: The Hon’Ble Mr. Justice B. M. Shyam Prasad

72 11 genuine as there is nexus between the donor and donee and therefore the notification dated 14.03.2008 is withdrawn retrospectively. The petitioner is also informed that the M/s Herbicure is engaged in bogus donation transaction through various brokers in lieu of commission; bogus donations are affected through cheque/RTGS and the amounts are rooted back to the donor

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

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

1) Where during the tendency of any proceedings of assessment or reassessment of turnover escaping assessment, the Commissioner is of the opinion that for the purpose of protecting the interest of the government revenue, it is necessary so to do, he may by order in writing attach provisionally any property belonging to the dealer in such manner

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