Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 25 (1.42 seconds)Section 25 in The Karnataka Value Added Tax Act, 2003 [Entire Act]
Section 21 in The Karnataka Value Added Tax Act, 2003 [Entire Act]
Section 22 in The Karnataka Value Added Tax Act, 2003 [Entire Act]
Section 24 in The Karnataka Value Added Tax Act, 2003 [Entire Act]
Article 265 in Constitution of India [Constitution]
Pathumma And Others vs State Of Kerala And Others on 16 January, 1978
● The correct interpretation of Section 25A would mandate that the
Assessing Authority apply his mind to the audit objection raised by the
CAG before arriving at a tentative decision to proceed against the
assessee. He must then issue a notice to the assessee informing him of
the proposal and take a final decision, after hearing him on whether or
not to proceed with the re-assessment. Based on that decision, the
Assessing Authority should then proceed to re-assess the assessee by
following the procedure envisaged in Section 25(1) of the KVAT Act. In
that event, he would also be bound by the provisions of limitation
prescribed under Section 25(1) of the KVAT Act. Reliance is placed on
the decisions in MCP Enterprises (M/s.) and Others v. State of
Kerala and Others - [2020 (1) KHC 127]; State of Kerala and
Others v. MCP Enterprises and Others - [MANU/KE/3470/2022];
The Assistant Commissioner (Assessment) & Others v. M/s.
Cholayil Pvt. Ltd. - [2023 (9) TMI 801 (SC)]; The State of Kerala
and Others v. Aditya Birla Nuvo Ltd. and Others -
[MANU/KE/0711/2020]; Commissioner of Income Tax v. Orissa
State Financial Corporation - [(1991) 99 CTR 0324]; IL & FS
Investment Managers Ltd. v. Income Tax Officer & Others -
[(2007) 209 CTR (Bombay) 1] and Reckitt Benckiser Healthcare
India Private Limited v. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax -
[(2016) 96 CCH 0159 (Gujarat)].
The State Of Kerala vs Aditya Birla Nuvo Ltd on 19 February, 2020
● The correct interpretation of Section 25A would mandate that the
Assessing Authority apply his mind to the audit objection raised by the
CAG before arriving at a tentative decision to proceed against the
assessee. He must then issue a notice to the assessee informing him of
the proposal and take a final decision, after hearing him on whether or
not to proceed with the re-assessment. Based on that decision, the
Assessing Authority should then proceed to re-assess the assessee by
following the procedure envisaged in Section 25(1) of the KVAT Act. In
that event, he would also be bound by the provisions of limitation
prescribed under Section 25(1) of the KVAT Act. Reliance is placed on
the decisions in MCP Enterprises (M/s.) and Others v. State of
Kerala and Others - [2020 (1) KHC 127]; State of Kerala and
Others v. MCP Enterprises and Others - [MANU/KE/3470/2022];
The Assistant Commissioner (Assessment) & Others v. M/s.
Cholayil Pvt. Ltd. - [2023 (9) TMI 801 (SC)]; The State of Kerala
and Others v. Aditya Birla Nuvo Ltd. and Others -
[MANU/KE/0711/2020]; Commissioner of Income Tax v. Orissa
State Financial Corporation - [(1991) 99 CTR 0324]; IL & FS
Investment Managers Ltd. v. Income Tax Officer & Others -
[(2007) 209 CTR (Bombay) 1] and Reckitt Benckiser Healthcare
India Private Limited v. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax -
[(2016) 96 CCH 0159 (Gujarat)].
Commissioner Of Income-Tax vs Orissa State Financial Corporation on 6 March, 1992
● The correct interpretation of Section 25A would mandate that the
Assessing Authority apply his mind to the audit objection raised by the
CAG before arriving at a tentative decision to proceed against the
assessee. He must then issue a notice to the assessee informing him of
the proposal and take a final decision, after hearing him on whether or
not to proceed with the re-assessment. Based on that decision, the
Assessing Authority should then proceed to re-assess the assessee by
following the procedure envisaged in Section 25(1) of the KVAT Act. In
that event, he would also be bound by the provisions of limitation
prescribed under Section 25(1) of the KVAT Act. Reliance is placed on
the decisions in MCP Enterprises (M/s.) and Others v. State of
Kerala and Others - [2020 (1) KHC 127]; State of Kerala and
Others v. MCP Enterprises and Others - [MANU/KE/3470/2022];
The Assistant Commissioner (Assessment) & Others v. M/s.
Cholayil Pvt. Ltd. - [2023 (9) TMI 801 (SC)]; The State of Kerala
and Others v. Aditya Birla Nuvo Ltd. and Others -
[MANU/KE/0711/2020]; Commissioner of Income Tax v. Orissa
State Financial Corporation - [(1991) 99 CTR 0324]; IL & FS
Investment Managers Ltd. v. Income Tax Officer & Others -
[(2007) 209 CTR (Bombay) 1] and Reckitt Benckiser Healthcare
India Private Limited v. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax -
[(2016) 96 CCH 0159 (Gujarat)].
Il And Fs Investment Managers Ltd. vs Income Tax Officer And Ors. on 27 November, 2006
● The correct interpretation of Section 25A would mandate that the
Assessing Authority apply his mind to the audit objection raised by the
CAG before arriving at a tentative decision to proceed against the
assessee. He must then issue a notice to the assessee informing him of
the proposal and take a final decision, after hearing him on whether or
not to proceed with the re-assessment. Based on that decision, the
Assessing Authority should then proceed to re-assess the assessee by
following the procedure envisaged in Section 25(1) of the KVAT Act. In
that event, he would also be bound by the provisions of limitation
prescribed under Section 25(1) of the KVAT Act. Reliance is placed on
the decisions in MCP Enterprises (M/s.) and Others v. State of
Kerala and Others - [2020 (1) KHC 127]; State of Kerala and
Others v. MCP Enterprises and Others - [MANU/KE/3470/2022];
The Assistant Commissioner (Assessment) & Others v. M/s.
Cholayil Pvt. Ltd. - [2023 (9) TMI 801 (SC)]; The State of Kerala
and Others v. Aditya Birla Nuvo Ltd. and Others -
[MANU/KE/0711/2020]; Commissioner of Income Tax v. Orissa
State Financial Corporation - [(1991) 99 CTR 0324]; IL & FS
Investment Managers Ltd. v. Income Tax Officer & Others -
[(2007) 209 CTR (Bombay) 1] and Reckitt Benckiser Healthcare
India Private Limited v. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax -
[(2016) 96 CCH 0159 (Gujarat)].