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

Bench: K.SOMASHEKAR,UMESH M ADIGA

68,753 235B – 1,59,97,806 2,90,66,559 13 Total Tax 10,16,70,745 Less: 140A paid 2,00,00,000 Net Amount Payable 8,16,70,745 13. It is further contended by the standing counsel for the appellant, that against the order passed by the Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle 1

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

Bench: K.SOMASHEKAR,UMESH M ADIGA

68,753 12 235B – 1,59,97,806 2,90,66,559 Total Tax 10,16,70,745 Less: 140A paid 2,00,00,000 Net Amount Payable 8,16,70,745 11.It is further contended by the standing councel for the appellant /Revenue that against the order passed by the Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle 1

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

THE PR. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX vs. M/S. TE CONNECTIVITY INDIA PVT. LTD.,

Accordingly dispose of the appeal as allowed

Bench: ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE,S RACHAIAH

1), 2ND FLOOR, BMTC BUILDING, 80 FEET ROAD, KORMANGALA, BENGALURU - 560 095. ...APPELLANTS (BY SRI. SUSHAL TIWARI N, ADVOCATE) AND: M/S. TE CONNECTIVITY INDIA PVT. LTD., TE PARK, 22B, DODDENAKUNDI CORPORATION, 2ND PHASE, INDUSTRIAL AREA, WHITEFIELD ROAD, BENGALURU - 560 048. PAN: AABCT7474C …RESPONDENT (BY SRI. K. SURYANARAYANA, SENIOR ADVOCATE FOR SMT. TANMAYEE RAJKUMAR, ADVOCATE) THIS ITA IS FILED UNDER SECTION

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

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 in terms of Gujarat Narmada Valley Fertilizers Co. Ltd., supra, the claim which

MR. BINEESH KODIYERI vs. DIRECTORATE OF ENFORCEMENT

Bench: The Hon’Ble Mr. Justice Suraj Govindaraj Writ Petition No. 13261 Of 2020 (Gm-Res) Between: Mr. Bineesh Kodiyeri S/O Mr. Kodiyeri Balakrishnan Aged About 37 Years Kootamvilla Lane, Maruthankuzhi Thiruvananthapuram District Kerala State – 695013

68 keep such order and material for such period, as may be prescribed. (3) Every person arrested under sub-section (1) shall within twenty-four hours, be taken to a Judicial Magistrate or a Metropolitan Magistrate, as the case may be, having jurisdiction: Provided that the period of twenty-four hours shall exclude the time necessary for the journey

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 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 DIRECTOR OF INCOME TAX vs. INDIA HERITAGE FOUNDATION

The appeal is disposed of

Bench: ALOK ARADHE,H.T. NARENDRA PRASAD

1) The Commissioner may call for and examine the record of any proceeding under this Act, and if he considers that any order passed therein by the Assessing Officer is erroneous in so far as it is prejudicial to the interests of the revenue, he, may, after giving the assessee an opportunity of being heard and after making or causing

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

68,301/- claimed by the assessee as 100% deduction under Section 35(1)(i) also came to be disallowed. Said order of assessment dated 31.01.2013 is impugned in the present writ petition. 3. I have heard the arguments of Sriyuths N Venkataraman, learned Senior counsel appearing on 5 behalf of Sri K.R.Vasudevan, for petitioner, Sri K.V.Aravind, learned Senior panel

SRI. T.N. RAGHUPATHY vs. HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA

In the result, the writ petitions are

Bench: B.V.NAGARATHNA,SUBHRO KAMAL MUKHARJEE (AG.CJ)

68 YEARS, ADVOCATE, ENROLLMENT NO. KAR/240/1972, PRESENTLY AT: APT.NO. 263, 6TH FLOOR, RAJANIGANDHA-GARDEN APARTMENTS, NO. 21, VITTAL MALLYA ROAD, BANGALORE-560 001. -: 4 :- 12. SRI. R.L. PATIL, S/O NOT KNOWN, AGED ABOUT 60 YEARS, ADVOCATE, ENROLLMENT NO. KAR/462/1978, PRESENTLY AT: 1ST & 2ND FLOOR, SWASTIK COMPLEX, SESHADRIPURAM, BANGALORE-560 020. 13. SRI. LAKSHMINARAYANA .V, S/O NOT KNOWN, AGED ABOUT

M. VEERABHADRAIAH vs. THE UNION OF INDIA

In the result, the writ petitions are

Bench: B.V.NAGARATHNA,SUBHRO KAMAL MUKHARJEE (AG.CJ)

68 YEARS, ADVOCATE, ENROLLMENT NO. KAR/240/1972, PRESENTLY AT: APT.NO. 263, 6TH FLOOR, RAJANIGANDHA-GARDEN APARTMENTS, NO. 21, VITTAL MALLYA ROAD, BANGALORE-560 001. -: 4 :- 12. SRI. R.L. PATIL, S/O NOT KNOWN, AGED ABOUT 60 YEARS, ADVOCATE, ENROLLMENT NO. KAR/462/1978, PRESENTLY AT: 1ST & 2ND FLOOR, SWASTIK COMPLEX, SESHADRIPURAM, BANGALORE-560 020. 13. SRI. LAKSHMINARAYANA .V, S/O NOT KNOWN, AGED ABOUT

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

Section 263 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (‘IT Act’ in short) vide order dated 17.03.2014 for the AY:2008- 09. 3. The facts to be noted for the purpose of this order are, the appellant is a Private Limited Company incorporated on 08.10.1998, which is engaged in the business of manufacturing through contract manufacturers and distributing the Advanced

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

263 ITR 706 at page 741 also supports the case of the 33 respondent/assessee and are squarely applicable to the present situation is his submission. He alternatively submitted that without prejudice to the contentions urged on the question of liability under Section 6-B of the Act; that in view of the exemption under the proviso 10 to Section

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

SRI SALIL PUNOOSE vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER

The appeal stands allowed to the extent as

Bench: S.SUJATHA,VINEET SARAN

1) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (for short ‘the Act’) and refund of Rs.7,68,060/- was granted on 27.11.2002. However, the case of the - 3 - assessee was taken up for scrutiny under Section 143(3) of the Act and vide order dated 11.01.2005, the claim of the assessee, that he was a non-resident Indian

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

The appeals are allowed

Bench: N.KUMAR,H.S.KEMPANNA

1) of the Act, he declined to permit the assessee to carry forward the long-term capital loss of Rs.1,24,03,271/-. Consequently, he also set aside the order passed by the Assessing Authority insofar as the interest is concerned. Aggrieved by this order, the Revenue preferred an appeal before the Tribunal. The Tribunal held that the Commissioner