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

DELL INDIA PVT LTD vs. THE JOINT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX

Bench: The Hon’Ble Mr.Justice Aravind Kumar

reassessment proceedings even when intimation under section 143(1) had been issued”. 15. Keeping these principles in mind when the facts on hand are examined it would indicate that during the course of assessment proceedings for the assessment year 2009-10 assessee had requested the Assessing officer to reconcile the sales as per sales tax return and sales declared

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

reassessment is made in consequence of or to give effect to any finding, direction or order of the various authorities mentioned in the proviso, the directions could be interpreted to mean the directions given by the said authority or court in the case. The finding also stand - 24 - on the same footing and therefore the finding recorded in a particular

THE PR COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX vs. M/S VSL MINING COMPANY PVT LTD

Appeal is dismissed as being

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

96,22,255/-. A notice under Section 143(2) as also Section 142(1) of the IT Act was issued, consequent to which vide Assessment Order4 dated 31.12.2009 the Assessing Officer4 assessed the taxable income as `115,89,54,044/- and the balance tax payable at `44,31,32,567/-. 3. It is further forthcoming that a survey under Section

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

reassessment order relating to the relevant tax periods / week / month of the year.” (a) Clauses 1.1 and 1.2 define arrears of tax for the purpose of the Scheme with regard to; Karnataka Value Added Tax Act, 2003 (for short ‘KVAT Act’) and Central Sales Tax Act, 1956 (for short ‘CST Act’) on the one hand and also for the purpose

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

Appeals are dismissed and

Bench: S.SUJATHA,VINEET KOTHARI

reassessment order relating to the relevant tax periods / week / month of the year.” (a) Clauses 1.1 and 1.2 define arrears of tax for the purpose of the Scheme with regard to; Karnataka Value Added Tax Act, 2003 (for short ‘KVAT Act’) and Central Sales Tax Act, 1956 (for short ‘CST Act’) on the one hand and also for the purpose

SMT SHANTHA KUMARI vs. SRI V N SATYANARAYANA

Bench: K.L.MANJUNATH,A.V.CHANDRASHEKARA

reassessed the evidence in the light of the law applicable to 45 enforcement of specific performance of contract. We do not see anything to fall in line with the reasoning given by the trial Court or the final opinion. Accordingly, the appeal is to be allowed in its entirety with costs throughout. ORDER Appeal filed under Section 96

SRI AVINASH LALA CHANDANI vs. SRI P A NIRANJAN

Bench: The Hon'Ble Mr. Justice A.V.Chandrashekara

Section 96 of CPC. Hence the revisional Court can reassess the evidence placed before the Court if material evidence is either

THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX vs. SHRI H E PANDURANGA

The appeal is disposed of

Bench: ALOK ARADHE,H.T. NARENDRA PRASAD

reassessment made protectively under Section 147 for the assessment years 1996-97 and 1997-98 by holding them as infructuous without going into the merits of the case when the issues with reference to unexplained cash credits of Rs.50 Lakhs and Rs.65,10,000/- have been found to be unexplained? (ii) Whether the Tribunal was correct in 3 applying

THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX vs. M/S. ASTRA ZENECA PHARMA

In the result, the order passed by the

Bench: ALOK ARADHE,HEMANT CHANDANGOUDAR

96,82,930/-. The return was processed under Section 143(1A) of the Act and was rectified under Section 154 of the Act on 27.10.1998. The case was selected for scrutiny. Thereupon notices were issued under Section 143(2) and 143(1) to the assessee. The assessing officer by an order dated 26.03.1999 passed an order of assessment and inter

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

Bench: CHIEF JUSTICE,C M JOSHI

96,94,000 Income from business of the undertaking after voluntary TP adjustment 16,43,58,504 AY 2016-17 (Pertaining to ITA No.107/2025): Particulars SEZ Unit Eligible for deduction u/s 10AA Profit of the undertaking as per computation statement

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

The appeals are dismissed

Bench: ARAVIND KUMAR,N.KUMAR

96,310/- was levied in terms of Section 271(1)(c) of Income Tax Act, 1961. 6. Aggrieved by the said order of levy of penalty, both the assessees filed appeals before C.I.T (Appeals), Gulbarga, in ITA No.64-65/03-04/BLY. The Appellate Authority by separate orders dated 18.02.2004 confirmed the levy of penalty and dismissed the appeals filed by the assessees. Being

SRI DEVARAJ vs. SMT DAYARATHINI

The appeal stands dismissed with costs

Bench: The Hon’Ble Mr. Justice Sreenivas Harish Kumar Regular First Appeal No.380 Of 2005

Section 58 of the Indian Evidence Act. 10. Amongst other points, one of the points dealt with in the cases of Sundarjas Kanyalal Bhathija and others Vs. The Collector, Thane (AIR 1990 SC 261) and Indian Oil Corporation Ltd., Vs. Municipal Corporation and another [(1995) 4 SCC 96], is as regards binding nature of precedents. The reason for citing these

VASANT S/O. MANESHWAR SANU vs. NINGAPPA S/O. MAHADEVAPPA MALAGI

In the result, we come to the conclusion that the

Bench: SREENIVAS HARISH KUMAR,P.N.DESAI

SECTION 96 OF CPC AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE DATED 13.03.2013 PASSED IN O.S.NO. 87/2011 ON THE FILE OF THE ADDL. SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE, HAVERI, PARTLY DECREEING THE SUIT FILED FOR DECLARATION AND PERMANENT INJUNCTION & ETC. IN R.F.A. CR. OB. NO. 100013/2014 BETWEEN: 1. NINGAPPA S/O MAHADEVAPPA MALAGI, AGE: 47 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE, R/O DEVAGIRI-YALLAPUR, TQ: HAVERI

THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX vs. M/S IBM GLOBAL SERVICES INDIA PVT LTD

Appeals are dismissed

Bench: The Hon'Ble Mr. Justice H.P. Sandesh

reassessed the material 38 available on record and having considered the material on record, taken note of the settlement deed dated 05.12.1910. However, the Trial Court, while answering issue Nos.3 and 4, negated the same, but the First Appellate Court reversed the findings of the Trial Court and formulated the point in the appeal whether the settlement deed executed

H A VISWANATHA RAO vs. SRI H N SUBBANNA

Appeal is hereby dismissed

Bench: The Hon’Ble Mr.Justice Aravind Kumar

96 of the C.P.C praying to set aside the judgment and decree dated 22.03.2003 passed in O.S.No.5494/1992 on the file of the 11th Addl. City Civil Judge, Bangalore (CCH-8), dismissing the suit for specific performance. This Appeal coming on for Hearing this day, the Court delivered the following: 2 JUDGMENT Unsuccessful plaintiff has questioned the correctness and legality

GIRIJADEVI W/O MANIRAM JATAV vs. DR. SHRIDHAR R PAI

Appeal is allowed in part

Bench: RAVI V.HOSMANI,B.A.PATIL

Section 168 of the Act uses the word “just compensation” which, in our opinion, should be assigned a broad meaning. We cannot, in determining the issue involved in the matter, lost sight of the fact that the private sector companies in place of introducing a pension scheme take recourse to payment of contributory provident fund, gratuity and other perks

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