SHRI B.S. YEDDYURAPPA vs. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA

Bench: The Hon’Ble Mrs.Justice Rathnakala

Section 154(1) of the Code. But the concern is, availing the CAG report as the basis for registration of the criminal case subjecting the same to the test of trial in a criminal court which has no jurisdiction to adjudicate the question raised in the CAG report. The CAG report wherefore since not available for judicial scrutiny

SHRI B.S. YEDDYURAPPA vs. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA

Bench: The Hon’Ble Mrs.Justice Rathnakala

Section 154(1) of the Code. But the concern is, availing the CAG report as the basis for registration of the criminal case subjecting the same to the test of trial in a criminal court which has no jurisdiction to adjudicate the question raised in the CAG report. The CAG report wherefore since not available for judicial scrutiny

SHRI B.S. YEDDYURAPPA vs. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA

Bench: The Hon’Ble Mrs.Justice Rathnakala

Section 154(1) of the Code. But the concern is, availing the CAG report as the basis for registration of the criminal case subjecting the same to the test of trial in a criminal court which has no jurisdiction to adjudicate the question raised in the CAG report. The CAG report wherefore since not available for judicial scrutiny

SHRI B.S. YEDDYURAPPA vs. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA

Bench: The Hon’Ble Mrs.Justice Rathnakala

Section 154(1) of the Code. But the concern is, availing the CAG report as the basis for registration of the criminal case subjecting the same to the test of trial in a criminal court which has no jurisdiction to adjudicate the question raised in the CAG report. The CAG report wherefore since not available for judicial scrutiny

SHRI B.S. YEDDYURAPPA vs. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA

Bench: The Hon’Ble Mrs.Justice Rathnakala

Section 154(1) of the Code. But the concern is, availing the CAG report as the basis for registration of the criminal case subjecting the same to the test of trial in a criminal court which has no jurisdiction to adjudicate the question raised in the CAG report. The CAG report wherefore since not available for judicial scrutiny

SHRI B S YEDDYURAPPA vs. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA

Bench: The Hon’Ble Mrs.Justice Rathnakala

Section 154(1) of the Code. But the concern is, availing the CAG report as the basis for registration of the criminal case subjecting the same to the test of trial in a criminal court which has no jurisdiction to adjudicate the question raised in the CAG report. The CAG report wherefore since not available for judicial scrutiny

SHRI B.S. YEDDYURAPPA vs. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA

Bench: The Hon’Ble Mrs.Justice Rathnakala

Section 154(1) of the Code. But the concern is, availing the CAG report as the basis for registration of the criminal case subjecting the same to the test of trial in a criminal court which has no jurisdiction to adjudicate the question raised in the CAG report. The CAG report wherefore since not available for judicial scrutiny

SHRI B.S. YEDDYURAPPA vs. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA

Bench: The Hon’Ble Mrs.Justice Rathnakala

Section 154(1) of the Code. But the concern is, availing the CAG report as the basis for registration of the criminal case subjecting the same to the test of trial in a criminal court which has no jurisdiction to adjudicate the question raised in the CAG report. The CAG report wherefore since not available for judicial scrutiny

SHRI B.S. YEDDYURAPPA vs. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA

Bench: The Hon’Ble Mrs.Justice Rathnakala

Section 154(1) of the Code. But the concern is, availing the CAG report as the basis for registration of the criminal case subjecting the same to the test of trial in a criminal court which has no jurisdiction to adjudicate the question raised in the CAG report. The CAG report wherefore since not available for judicial scrutiny

SHRI B.S. YEDDYURAPPA vs. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA

Bench: The Hon’Ble Mrs.Justice Rathnakala

Section 154(1) of the Code. But the concern is, availing the CAG report as the basis for registration of the criminal case subjecting the same to the test of trial in a criminal court which has no jurisdiction to adjudicate the question raised in the CAG report. The CAG report wherefore since not available for judicial scrutiny

M/S SUBEX LTD vs. THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-III,

In the result, appeal is partly allowed as indicated

Bench: S.SUJATHA,RAVI V HOSMANI

154 proceedings were initiated, subsequent to initiation of revisional proceedings under Section 263, the same would not pass the test of law as enunciated by the Hon'ble Apex Court in Shasun Chemicals and Drugs Ltd., supra, since the same being post revision proceedings and has resulted in giving relief to the assessee on some other ground. Even

SRI G LALANATHA REDDY vs. THE ASST COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX

Appeals stand dismissed

Bench: D K SINGH,VENKATESH NAIK T

68 OF 2022 INCOME TAX APPEAL NO. 71 OF 2022 INCOME TAX APPEAL NO. 86 OF 2022 INCOME TAX APPEAL NO. 121 OF 2022 INCOME TAX APPEAL NO. 177 OF 2022 INCOME TAX APPEAL NO. 292 OF 2022 AND INCOME TAX APPEAL NO. 305 OF 2022 IN ITA No. 178/2022: BETWEEN: 1. SRI G LALANATHA REDDY AGED 45 YEARS

THE PR. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX vs. M/S KIDS KEMP

In the result, the appeal fails and is hereby dismissed

Bench: ALOK ARADHE,HEMANT CHANDANGOUDAR

68 GST 239, has submitted that 6 the provisions pertaining to deduction / exemption has to be strictly considered and in case there is any ambiguity in the provision, the benefit of the same has to be explained to the revenue. 6. On the other hand, learned Senior counsel for the assessee submitted that for invocation of Section 154

SMT M. R. PRABHAVATHY vs. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER

In the result, the appeal fails and is hereby dismissed

Bench: ARAVIND KUMAR,E.S.INDIRESH

68 GST 239, has submitted that 6 the provisions pertaining to deduction / exemption has to be strictly considered and in case there is any ambiguity in the provision, the benefit of the same has to be explained to the revenue. 6. On the other hand, learned Senior counsel for the assessee submitted that for invocation of Section 154

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 WIPRO LIMITED vs. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX

The appeals stand disposed of, accordingly

Bench: N.KUMAR,B.SREENIVASE GOWDA

Section 154. Notice u/s 142(1) was issued on 21.12.2001 with a questionnaire. Further notices u/s 142 (1) were issued on various dates beginning from 7.10.2003 to 8.3.2004. The assessee- company filed written replies along with enclosures from time to time. The return furnished on 30.10.2001 was processed u/s 143(3) of the I.T.Act on 24.03.2004 and order

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

The appeals stand disposed of, accordingly

Bench: N.KUMAR,B.SREENIVASE GOWDA

Section 154. Notice u/s 142(1) was issued on 21.12.2001 with a questionnaire. Further notices u/s 142 (1) were issued on various dates beginning from 7.10.2003 to 8.3.2004. The assessee- company filed written replies along with enclosures from time to time. The return furnished on 30.10.2001 was processed u/s 143(3) of the I.T.Act on 24.03.2004 and order

SRI. P S SESHADRI. vs. THE CHIEF COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX

In the result, this petition is allowed in part

Bench: The Hon'Ble Mr.Justice Ram Mohan Reddy

154 of the Act by giving credit of Rs.29,09,800/- being the tax amount paid, to reduce the tax liability to Rs.6,98,430/- being the interest portion as follows: Interest levied u/S 234-A – Rs.87,342/- Interest levied u/S 234-B –Rs.6,12,768/- W.P.42424/12 6 5. Petitioner’s application dated 19.5.2009 Annexure-O before the CBDT