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

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

22 - of Sections 148 to153, assess or reassess such income and also any other income chargeable to tax which has escaped assessment and which comes to his notice subsequently in the course of the proceedings under this section, or recompute the loss or the depreciation allowance or any other allowance, as the case may be, for the assessment year concerned

THE SRI KANNIKAPARAMESWARI CO OP BANK LIMITED vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER

The appeal stands allowed

Bench: S.SUJATHA,HANCHATE SANJEEVKUMAR

e) of the Evidence Act can be applied and it can be held that it is a case of change of opinion?" Analyzing the Judgments of the Hon’ble Apex Court in extenso, observed thus: “(1) Reassessment proceedings can be validly initiated in case return of income is processed under Section 143(1) and no scrutiny assessment is undertaken

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

Bench: K.SOMASHEKAR,UMESH M ADIGA

E N T This appeal preferred by the Revenue is directed against the order passed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Bengaluru (for short “ITAT”) in M.P.No.152/Bang/2016 (in ITA No.1457/Bang/2014) dated 06.03.2018 for assessment year 2011-2012 vide Annexure-D. The prayer sought for in this appeal is to set aside the said order by allowing the appeal

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

Bench: K.SOMASHEKAR,UMESH M ADIGA

E N T This appeal is directed against the order passed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Bengaluru (for short “ITAT”) in M.P.No.149/Bang/2016 (in ITA No.1450/Bang/2014) dated 06.03.2018 for assessment year 2011-2012 vide Annexure-D. The prayer sought for in this appeal is to set aside the said order by allowing the appeal and confirming the order

THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX vs. M/S SHASTHA PHARMA LABORATORIES

The appeal is dismissed

Bench: N.KUMAR,RATHNAKALA

E N T THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE N. KUMAR A N D THE HON’BLE MRS. JUSTICE RATHNAKALA INCOME TAX APPEAL NO.331 OF 2007 BETWEEN: 1.THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX CENTRAL CIRCLE, C.R. BUILDING, QUEENS ROAD, BANGALORE. 2.THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX WARD – 12(2), C.R. BUILDING, QUEENS ROAD, BANGALORE. ... APPELLANTS. (BY SRI K V ARAVIND

SHRI. JAGADISH. N. HINDUJA vs. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX

In the result, appeal is disposed of

Bench: ALOK ARADHE,HEMANT CHANDANGOUDAR

Section 147 are satisfied? (4) Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case there was any reliable and cogent material in the recording u/s 148(2) of the Assessing Officer to initiate reassessment proceedings? (5) Whether on the facts and circumstances of the case, the funds provided to the associate concerns

PR COMMISSIONER OF WEALTH TAX-6 vs. SRI. M. R. JAYARAM (INDL)

In the result, appeal is disposed of

Bench: RAVI MALIMATH,ASHOK S.KINAGI

Section 147 are satisfied? (4) Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case there was any reliable and cogent material in the recording u/s 148(2) of the Assessing Officer to initiate reassessment proceedings? (5) Whether on the facts and circumstances of the case, the funds provided to the associate concerns

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

22. It is noted that in the financial year 2003-04, assessee had constructed a project known as M/s.IBC Knowledge Park Pvt. Ltd., on Bannerghatta Road, - 27 - Bengaluru. However, there were disputes between the assessee and Bangalore Housing Development and Investments, a partnership firm, with whom the assessee had entered into a joint development agreement. As a result, assessee could

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

22. It is noted that in the financial year 2003-04, assessee had constructed a project known as M/s.IBC Knowledge Park Pvt. Ltd., on Bannerghatta Road, - 27 - Bengaluru. However, there were disputes between the assessee and Bangalore Housing Development and Investments, a partnership firm, with whom the assessee had entered into a joint development agreement. As a result, assessee could

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

22. It is noted that in the financial year 2003-04, assessee had constructed a project known as M/s.IBC Knowledge Park Pvt. Ltd., on Bannerghatta Road, - 27 - Bengaluru. However, there were disputes between the assessee and Bangalore Housing Development and Investments, a partnership firm, with whom the assessee had entered into a joint development agreement. As a result, assessee could

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

Bench: CHIEF JUSTICE,C M JOSHI

u/s 10AA Profit of the undertaking as per computation statement 43,60,79,542 - 7 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:36360-DB ITA No. 107 of 2025 C/W ITA No. 106 of 2025 Add: Voluntary TP adjustment 36,90,62,637 Income from business of the undertaking after voluntary TP adjustment 80,51,42,179 7. The AO had denied

P ARVIND MAIYA vs. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX

Accordingly, writ petition is allowed

Bench: S.SUJATHA

E R The petitioner has challenged the notice dated 03.03.2015 issued under the provisions of Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 [‘Act’ for short] relating to the assessment years 2008-09. 2. The petitioner filed the return of income for the assessment year 2008-09 declaring the total income of Rs.1,84,03,401/- which includes the income

P VIKRAM MAIYA vs. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX

Accordingly, writ petition is allowed

Bench: S.SUJATHA

E R The petitioner has challenged the notice dated 03.03.2015 issued under the provisions of Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 [‘Act’ for short] relating to the assessment years 2008-09. 2. The petitioner filed the return of income for the assessment year 2008-09 declaring the total income of Rs.1,83,08,077/- which includes the income

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

The appeals are dismissed

Bench: ARAVIND KUMAR,N.KUMAR

E N T A batch of appeals where different facets of Section 271 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 are involved, were placed before us. Therefore, we heard all the learned counsel appearing in the batch of cases, considered all the arguments addressed and interpreted Section 271 in its different facets and have laid down the law. 8 FACTUAL MATRIX

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

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

U/S 4 of the Karnataka High Court Act praying to set aside the order dated 2.1.2018 in Writ Petition No.61671/2016 (T-IT) passed by the learned Single Judge. This appeal coming on for hearing this day, NAGARATHNA J., delivered the following: -: 2 :- J U D G M E N T The Revenue has preferred this appeal being aggrieved

PR.COMMISSIONER vs. M/S ESTEEM CLASSIC

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

U/S 4 of the Karnataka High Court Act praying to set aside the order dated 2.1.2018 in Writ Petition No.61671/2016 (T-IT) passed by the learned Single Judge. This appeal coming on for hearing this day, NAGARATHNA J., delivered the following: -: 2 :- J U D G M E N T The Revenue has preferred this appeal being aggrieved

THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX vs. M/S PRAKASH ELECTRIC COMPANY

Bench: S.SUJATHA,VINEET KOTHARI

147 of the Act for Assessment Year 2000-01 and tax liability on the capital gains of Rs.1,33,43,710/- to the extent of Rs.51,37,329/- and with interest under Sections 234A and 234B of the Act, a total demand of Rs.93,17,550/- was raised against the Assessee-firm. 7. The First Appellate Authority

KIDS CLINIC INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED

Bench: KRISHNA S DIXIT

147 of the Act for Assessment Year 2000-01 and tax liability on the capital gains of Rs.1,33,43,710/- to the extent of Rs.51,37,329/- and with interest under Sections 234A and 234B of the Act, a total demand of Rs.93,17,550/- was raised against the Assessee-firm. 7. The First Appellate Authority