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 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

91,14,354/- paid during the previous years. The Tribunal held that there was no infirmity in the order of the Appellate Commissioner in granting relief to the assessee. Therefore, the same was confirmed. 24. Learned counsel for the Revenue, however, contended that the Appellate Authorities were not right in holding that a sum of Rs.1.91 crore cannot be disallowed

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

91,14,354/- paid during the previous years. The Tribunal held that there was no infirmity in the order of the Appellate Commissioner in granting relief to the assessee. Therefore, the same was confirmed. 24. Learned counsel for the Revenue, however, contended that the Appellate Authorities were not right in holding that a sum of Rs.1.91 crore cannot be disallowed

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

91,14,354/- paid during the previous years. The Tribunal held that there was no infirmity in the order of the Appellate Commissioner in granting relief to the assessee. Therefore, the same was confirmed. 24. Learned counsel for the Revenue, however, contended that the Appellate Authorities were not right in holding that a sum of Rs.1.91 crore cannot be disallowed

THE PR.COMMISSIONER OF vs. M/S MAHAVEER CALYX

In the result, the orders passed by the Assessing

Bench: SATISH CHANDRA SHARMA,V SRISHANANDA

91 VST 188 (SC), 'TATA ENGINEERING & LOCOMOTIVE CO. Vs. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF CENTRAL TAX' (1970) 1 SCC 622, 'KELVINATOR OF INDIA LTD. Vs. STATE OF HARYANA' (1973) 32 STC 629 AND 'STATE OF A.P. Vs. COROMANDEL PAINTS AND CHEMICALS LTD.' (1995) 98 STC 82 AP. 9. On the other hand, learned Additional Government Advocate submitted that the advance ruling

M/S KHODAY INDIA LTD vs. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX

In the result, the orders passed by the Assessing

Bench: ALOK ARADHE,HEMANT CHANDANGOUDAR

91 TAXMANN.COM 154 (SC). It is further submitted that the assessee had never raised the contention before the authorities under the Act that investments have not been made by it from the borrowed funds and therefore, for the first time, the said issue cannot be raised in this appeal and an enquiry has to be made to ascertain the factual

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

Bench: CHIEF JUSTICE,C M JOSHI

91,000/- on - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:36360-DB ITA No. 107 of 2025 C/W ITA No. 106 of 2025 account of APA. Similarly, the Assessee had along with his return, made TP adjustments of ₹48,36,10,916/- for AY 2016-17 on account of APA. 6. The voluntary TP adjustment pursuant to the APA, included

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 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 ASST. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX vs. M/S KOTARKI CONSTRUCTIONS PVT LTD

Bench: B.V.NAGARATHNA,J.M.KHAZI

reassessment dated 15.3.2016 for the Assessment Year 2010-11 issued by the 2nd appellant - The Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-1, Aayakar Bhavan, Sedam Road, Kalaburagi under Sections 147/148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as the 'Act' for the sake of brevity). 2. The brief facts of the case are, the original Assessing Authority, while

PR.COMMISSIONER vs. M/S ESTEEM CLASSIC

Bench: ALOK ARADHE,M.G.S. KAMAL

reassessment dated 15.3.2016 for the Assessment Year 2010-11 issued by the 2nd appellant - The Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-1, Aayakar Bhavan, Sedam Road, Kalaburagi under Sections 147/148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as the 'Act' for the sake of brevity). 2. The brief facts of the case are, the original Assessing Authority, while

THE PR COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX vs. M/S KWALITY BISCUITS PVT LTD

The appeal is disposed of with liberty as prayed for by the learned

Bench: S.G.PANDIT,C.M. POONACHA

Section 147 of the Income tax Act, as the reason for reopening emanates from the books of accounts of the assessee from which the material evidence of escapement of LTCG has been discovered by the Assessing Officer with due diligence required for reopening of the assessment? 3. Whether under the facts and circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was right

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

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 COMMR OF INCOME TAX vs. M/S WIPRO LTD

Bench: RAVI MALIMATH,N.KUMAR

section 1OA of the Act which would reduce exemption towards similar extent?” The said question arose for consideration in the assessee’s appeal ITA No.507/2002 which was disposed off on 25 th August, 2010. This Court after referring to the bifurcation of the financials of the assessee, held that there is no justification to Interfere with the well considered order

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

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 at 4% on 75% of the purchases furnished