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

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

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

reassessment proceedings under Section 147 of the Act are quoted hereunder for ready reference: “The assessee company has filed its return of income for the relevant assessment year on 30.09.2009 declaring total income of Rs.26,61,99,014/-. The case was assessed u/s 143(3) on 18.04.2011 determining total income at Rs.25,59,90

SRI N GOVINDARAJU vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER

Appeal stands disposed of

Bench: S.SUJATHA,VINEET SARAN

section 45(2) of the Act and denying the benefit of indexation. The reassessment was completed on 4 total income of Rs.29,90

PR.COMMISSIONER OF INCOMETAX-2 vs. M/S.EYGBS (INDIA) PVT LTD

Bench: CHIEF JUSTICE,C M JOSHI

90,62,637 Income from business of the undertaking after voluntary TP adjustment 80,51,42,179 7. The AO had denied the exemption under Section 10AA on the TP pricing adjustment made pursuant to the APA. The AO reasoned that the assessee had declared the TP adjustments in anticipation of such TP adjustments by the TPA and to avoid

PRABHU COFFEE WORKS vs. THE ADDITIONAL COMMISSIONER

In the result, we confirm the order of the

Bench: JAWAD RAHIM,B.MANOHAR

reassessment proceedings under Section 12-A of the Act for all the three assessment years and proceeded on the premise that though the coffee seeds was tax suffered, chicory was not tax suffered to qualify for beneficial reduction in rate of tax. The opinion of Assistant Commissioner of Commercial Taxes, Circle-I is that the coffee seeds purchased locally were

THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX vs. SHRI I MAHABALESHWARAPPA

In the result, the order passed by the tribunal

Bench: ALOK ARADHE,HEMANT CHANDANGOUDAR

90 TAXMANN.COM 413 (DEL), 'COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX VS. SMT. V. RUKMINI', (2011) 12 TAXMANN.COM 562 (KARNATAKA). 5. On the other hand, learned counsel for the assessee submitted that the order of assessment passed against a dead person is null and void. It is also submitted that admittedly, the Assessing Officer had not brought on record the legal representatives

SHRI. PRASANNA V GHOTAGE, vs. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF

Bench: The Hon’Ble Mr. Justice G.Narendar Writ Petition No.109810/2016 (T-It) & Writ Petition No.109811/2016 (T-It)

Section 153A of the Act was completed on - 5 - 21/3/2014 assessing the total income at Rs.9,08,05,720/- and Rs.5,96,79,010/- respectively. While completing the assessment, the Assessing Officer had added an amount of Rs.1,90,01,189/- and Rs.1,00,00,000/- respectively, being the difference in total income declared and net profit

SHRI. PRASANNA V GHOTAGE, vs. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF

Bench: The Hon’Ble Mr. Justice G.Narendar Writ Petition No.109810/2016 (T-It) A/W Writ Petition No.109811/2016 (T-It) In W.P.No.109810/2016: Between Shri Prasanna V Ghotage, "Prerana Hommes", Ranade Colony, Hindwadi, Belagavi-590006 ... Petitioner (By Sri.Shashank S.Hegde & Sri.Pramod Vaidya, Advocates) & 1. The Deputy Commissioner Of Income-Tax, Circle-1, Inicome Tax Office, Udupi 2. The Assistant Commissioner Of Income-Tax, Circle-1, 3Rd Floor, Income Tax Office, Opp Civil Hospital, Belgavi-590001 ... Respondents This Writ Petition Is Filed Under Articles 226 & 227 Of The Constitution Of India Praying To Call For The Records Of The Petitioner'S Case & After Examining The Legality & Validity Thereof Quash & Set Aside The Notice Dated 30.09.2015 Issued By Respondent No.1 Under Section 148 Of The Act To Reopen The Assessment For The Assessment Year 2009-10 Enclosed & Marked As Annexure- A As One Without Jurisdiction & Consequent Order Passed By The Respondent No.2 Disposing Off The Objections Filed By The Petitioner Vide Order Dated 28.10.2016 As Annexure-J.

Section 153A of the Act was completed on - 5 - 21/3/2014 assessing the total income at Rs.9,08,05,720/- and Rs.5,96,79,010/- respectively. While completing the assessment, the Assessing Officer had added an amount of Rs.1,90,01,189/- and Rs.1,00,00,000/- respectively, being the difference in total income declared and net profit

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 STATE OF KARNATAKA vs. M/S. WS RETAIL SERVICES PRIVATE LIMITED

Appeals are dismissed and

Bench: ABHAY SHREENIWAS OKA (CJ),S SUNIL DUTT YADAV

Section 4 of the Karnataka High Court Act, 1961, praying to set aside the order dated 14.11.2017 passed in W.P.No.33176/2017 c/w W.P.Nos.32658/2017, W.P.Nos.32659-32670/2017, W.P.Nos.33470-33472/2017, W.P.No.35892/2017, W.P.No.25349/2017 and W.P.Nos.31438-448/2017, W.P.No.25350/2017 and W.P.Nos.30508-518/2017, W.P.No.25351/2017 and W.P.Nos.30526-536/2017, W.P.No.25352/2017 and W.P.Nos

THE PR.COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, vs. M/S CAE SIMULATION TECHNOLOGIES PVT LTD

Appeals are dismissed and

Bench: S.SUJATHA,VINEET KOTHARI

Section 4 of the Karnataka High Court Act, 1961, praying to set aside the order dated 14.11.2017 passed in W.P.No.33176/2017 c/w W.P.Nos.32658/2017, W.P.Nos.32659-32670/2017, W.P.Nos.33470-33472/2017, W.P.No.35892/2017, W.P.No.25349/2017 and W.P.Nos.31438-448/2017, W.P.No.25350/2017 and W.P.Nos.30508-518/2017, W.P.No.25351/2017 and W.P.Nos.30526-536/2017, W.P.No.25352/2017 and W.P.Nos

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

The appeals are dismissed

Bench: ARAVIND KUMAR,N.KUMAR

reassessment shall be deemed to constitute satisfaction of the Assessing Officer for initiation of the penalty proceedings under the said clause (c).” 49. By the aforesaid deeming provision a legal fiction is created. When the assessment order contains a direction for initiation of penalty proceedings such order shall deem to constitute satisfaction of the Assessing Officer for initiation of penalty

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

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

THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX vs. BANGALORE INTERNATIONAL AIRPORT LTD

Bench: S.SUJATHA,VINEET SARAN

SECTION 173(1) OF MV ACT AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED:14.02.2014 PASSED IN MVC NO.122/2008 ON THE 3 FILE OF THE I ADDITIONAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE, MACT, KOLAR, AWARDING COMPENSATION OF RS.14,21,052/- WITH INTEREST @ 6% P.A FROM THE DATE OF PETITION TILL REALIZATION. IN MFA.CROB.NO.166 OF 2014 BETWEEN: 1 . LALITHA BAI W/O LATE D GOUTHAM