THE PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER vs. M/S OBULAPURAM MINING

Bench: K.SOMASHEKAR,UMESH M ADIGA

68,440/- (b) In respect of Helicopter Hiring Charges 72,23,641/- Total adjustments Rs.112,20,92,081/- 7. It is further stated that the draft assessment order came to be passed under section 144C read with Section 143(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 by adopting the above adjustments to the value of the international transactions

M/S WIPRO LIMITED vs. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX

The appeals stand disposed of, accordingly

Bench: N.KUMAR,B.SREENIVASE GOWDA

u/s 10A of the Act does not fall part of the total income to the extent of 90% for which deduction is allowable as it falls under Chapter III and does not therefore partake the nature of total income chargeable to tax as per provisions of section 4 of the Act and therefore not entitled to?” 14. The assessee-company

THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX vs. M/S WIPRO LTD

The appeals stand disposed of, accordingly

Bench: N.KUMAR,B.SREENIVASE GOWDA

u/s 10A of the Act does not fall part of the total income to the extent of 90% for which deduction is allowable as it falls under Chapter III and does not therefore partake the nature of total income chargeable to tax as per provisions of section 4 of the Act and therefore not entitled to?” 14. The assessee-company

HERBALIFE INTERNATIONAL INDIA PVT LTD vs. THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX

In the result, the assessee's appeal for

Bench: V KAMESWAR RAO,S RACHAIAH

68,567 Herbalife Logo & Letters Re-fabrication on Wall surface Kolkata 11,17,125 Interior and other related works (including partitions, false ceilings, sign board, display units, etc.) Kolkata 29,12,000 Leasehold Equipment Mumbai 24,78,074 Interior & other related works Guwahati 12,75,451 Total 2,28,51,221 4. It is the case of the appellant that

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

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

263 of the Act is available - 30 - and should be resorted to. But initiation of reassessment proceedings will be invalid on the ground of change of opinion. xxxxx xxxxx xxxxx The result of these decisions is that the statute does not require that the information must be extraneous to the record. It is enough if the material, on the basis

COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX vs. S.PARVATHI MADHAVA

The appeals are allowed

Bench: N.KUMAR,H.S.KEMPANNA

U/S 260 A OF THE INCOME-TAX ACT, 1961, AGAINST ORDER DTD:26-06-2009 PASSED IN ITA NO.747/BNG/2008 ON THE FILE OF THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, BANGALORE BENCH 'B', ALLOWING THE APPEAL FILED BY THE ASSESSEES. These appeals coming on for final disposal this day, N.Kumar J., delivered the following

COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX vs. S.MADHAVA (HUF)

The appeals are allowed

Bench: N.KUMAR,H.S.KEMPANNA

U/S 260 A OF THE INCOME-TAX ACT, 1961, AGAINST ORDER DTD:26-06-2009 PASSED IN ITA NO.747/BNG/2008 ON THE FILE OF THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, BANGALORE BENCH 'B', ALLOWING THE APPEAL FILED BY THE ASSESSEES. These appeals coming on for final disposal this day, N.Kumar J., delivered the following

COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX vs. S.MADHAVA (HUF)

The appeals are allowed

Bench: N.KUMAR,H.S.KEMPANNA

U/S 260 A OF THE INCOME-TAX ACT, 1961, AGAINST ORDER DTD:26-06-2009 PASSED IN ITA NO.747/BNG/2008 ON THE FILE OF THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, BANGALORE BENCH 'B', ALLOWING THE APPEAL FILED BY THE ASSESSEES. These appeals coming on for final disposal this day, N.Kumar J., delivered the following

COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX vs. S.MADHAVA, M/S BELLARY STEEL ROLING MILLS,

The appeals are allowed

Bench: N.KUMAR,H.S.KEMPANNA

U/S 260 A OF THE INCOME-TAX ACT, 1961, AGAINST ORDER DTD:26-06-2009 PASSED IN ITA NO.747/BNG/2008 ON THE FILE OF THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, BANGALORE BENCH 'B', ALLOWING THE APPEAL FILED BY THE ASSESSEES. These appeals coming on for final disposal this day, N.Kumar J., delivered the following

COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX vs. S.MADHAVA, M/S BELLARY STEEL ROLING MILLS,

The appeals are allowed

Bench: N.KUMAR,H.S.KEMPANNA

U/S 260 A OF THE INCOME-TAX ACT, 1961, AGAINST ORDER DTD:26-06-2009 PASSED IN ITA NO.747/BNG/2008 ON THE FILE OF THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, BANGALORE BENCH 'B', ALLOWING THE APPEAL FILED BY THE ASSESSEES. These appeals coming on for final disposal this day, N.Kumar J., delivered the following

THE PR. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX vs. M/S MOODBIDRI CO OPERATIVE SERVICES BANK LTD.,

Bench: KRISHNA S DIXIT,G BASAVARAJA

68,999/- under Section 80P(2)(a)(i) of the 1961 Act has been revived by setting aside the revisional order made by the Principal Commissioner of Income Tax. 2. Learned Sr. panel Counsel appearing for the Revenue has framed the following substantial questions of law which read as under: “1. Whether the Hon’ble ITAT is correct in considering

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

263 (revision of orders) of the Act. It was also held that it was not open for the assessee to seek deduction or claim expenditure, which had not - 64 - been claimed in the original assessment, which assessment already stood completed, only because a assessment under Section 153A of the Act in pursuance of search or requisition was required

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

263 (revision of orders) of the Act. It was also held that it was not open for the assessee to seek deduction or claim expenditure, which had not - 64 - been claimed in the original assessment, which assessment already stood completed, only because a assessment under Section 153A of the Act in pursuance of search or requisition was required

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

263 (revision of orders) of the Act. It was also held that it was not open for the assessee to seek deduction or claim expenditure, which had not - 64 - been claimed in the original assessment, which assessment already stood completed, only because a assessment under Section 153A of the Act in pursuance of search or requisition was required

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

Bench: K.SOMASHEKAR,UMESH M ADIGA

263 is any order passed under the Act by the Assessing Officer is erroneous insofar as it is prejudicial to the interest of the revenue. Once the order passed by the Assessing Officer gets reopened, there is no order which can be said to be erroneous insofar as it is prejudicial to the interest of the revenue which confers jurisdiction

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

Bench: K.SOMASHEKAR,UMESH M ADIGA

263 is any order passed under the Act by the Assessing Officer is erroneous insofar as it is prejudicial to the interest of the revenue. Once the order passed by the 36 Assessing Officer gets reopened, there is no order which can be said to be erroneous insofar as it is prejudicial to the interest of the revenue which confers

M/S TEJAS NETWORKS LIMITED vs. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX

In the result, I proceed to pass the following:

Bench: The Hon’Ble Mr.Justice Aravind Kumar

U/S. 143(3) OF THE ACT, DATED 31.1.2013 FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2009-10 VIDE ANNEUXRE-R & THE CONSEQUENTIAL DEMAND NOTICE ISSUED BY THE R-1, DATED 31.01.2014 FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2009-10 THAT IS VIDE ANNEXURE R-1. THIS PETITION COMING ON FOR DICTATING ORDERS THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING: O R D E R Petitioner

SMT G B RATHNAMMA vs. STATE OF KARNATAKA

Bench: The Hon’Ble Mr. Justice Aravind Kumar W.P. No.51929/2014 C/W W.P.Nos.42063/2012, 30494/2013, 42671/2013, 638/2014, 797/2014, 1089/2014, 3211/2014, 3389/2014, 6180/2014, 10356/2014, 12014/2014, 12015/2014, 13043/2014, 13045/2014, 13206/2014, 13207/2014, 13398/2014, 13774/2014, 14149/2014, 14161/2014, 14494/2014, 14502/2014, 14521/2014, 14689/2014, 16646/2014, 17051/2014, 17594/2014, 19729/2014, 21158/2014, 23897/2014, 28861/2014, 30731/2014, 31723/2014, 33774/2014, 33777/2014, 34084/2014, 34259/2014, 34272/2014, 34391/2014, 35204/2014, 35243/2014, 35247/2014, 35305/2014, 35609/2014, 36164/2014, 36166/2014, 36489/2014, 36525/2014, 36971/2014, 37446/2014, 38055/2014, 38463/2014, 38471/2014, 38472/2014, 38661/2014, 38753/2014, 39383/2014, 39633/2014, 39832/2014, 40204/2014, 40379/2014, 41394/2014, 41422/2014, 41427/2014, 41428/2014, 41858/2014, 43815/2014, 43963/2014, 44306/2014, 44527/2014, 44742/2014, 44835/2014, 45486/2014, 46766/2014, 47103/2014, 47105/2014, 47106/2014, 47107/2014, 47608/2014, 47731/2014, 47821/2014, 47860/2014, 47913/2014, 48577/2014, 48880/2014, 49567/2014, 50260/2014, 50533/2014, 51294/2014, 51930/2014, 51931/2014, 51932/2014, 52760/2014, 53854/2014, 54059/2014, 54083/2014, 54236/2014

U/S 17(1) & (3) OF THE BANGALORE DEVELOPMENT ACT, UNDER PRLY. NOTIFICATION DATED 03.02.2003 & THE FINAL NOTIFICATION DATED 18.06.2014 PRODUCED AT ANN-A & ANN-B PASSED BY THE R-1 IN SO FAR AS THE LANDS OF THE PETITIONER IN SITUATED IN KEMPAPURA VILLAGE, YALAHANKA HOBLI, BANGALORE NORTH TQ. BANGALORE IS CONCERNED AND ETC IN W.P. NO. 47913/2014: BETWEEN