MASTER BALACHANDAR KRISHNAN vs. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA

Bench: B.V.NAGARATHNA,RAVI V HOSMANI

Section 8 of the Act provides for the authorities of the School which are five in number. Section 18 of the Act which deals with authorities and Officers of the School etc., states that the authorities of the School and their composition, powers, functions and other matters relating to them, the officers of the School and their appointment, powers, functions

PR COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX vs. M/S ENNOBLE CONSTRUCTION

Bench: KRISHNA S.DIXIT,P.KRISHNA BHAT

145 of the 1961 Act, the AO acting under Section 143(3) could not have made the ad hoc disallowance; the fact that for the Assessment Year 2008 – 09 some addition was made under the said head, cannot be the sole basis for making such an addition for the subsequent Assessment Year, each assessment being an independent compact. He also

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

The appeals stand disposed of, accordingly

Bench: N.KUMAR,B.SREENIVASE GOWDA

Section 145A of the Income- tax Act which was inserted with effect from assessment year 1999-2000. The said provision states that the valuation of stock should include the amount of any tax duty, cess or fee - 94 - actually paid or incurred to bring the goods to its present location and condition. The Department has followed a consistent stand

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

The appeals stand disposed of, accordingly

Bench: N.KUMAR,B.SREENIVASE GOWDA

Section 145A of the Income- tax Act which was inserted with effect from assessment year 1999-2000. The said provision states that the valuation of stock should include the amount of any tax duty, cess or fee - 94 - actually paid or incurred to bring the goods to its present location and condition. The Department has followed a consistent stand

SATISH N vs. STATE OF KARNATAKA

Bench: The Hon’Ble Mr. Justice Raghvendra S. Chauhan

Section 93 of the Act, namely "a canvasser…solicits the customer for such vehicle (public service vehicle) ”. Therefore, an aggregator is covered under Section 93 of the Act. 53. Of course, Mr. Sajan Poovayya, the learned Senior counsel, has argued that an aggregator does not go on to the road to solicit customers. But in the Digital Age, the internet

PR. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX vs. M/S CHAMUNDI WINERY AND DISTILLERY

Bench: S.SUJATHA,VINEET KOTHARI

145 ITR 323 (Kar): TC 44R. 1060 distinguished” CASE LAWS RELIED UPON BY THE RESPONDENT – ASSESSEE: 50. 50. Mr. A. Shankar, the learned counsel appearing for the Respondent Assessee who has not Date of Judgment 25-09-2018 I.T.A.No.155/2016 and connected matters The Pr. Commissioner of Income Tax & Ors. Vs. M/s. Chamundi Winery and Distillery 96/137 only painstakingly prepared

THE PR. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (4) vs. M/S CHAMUNDI WINERY AND DISTILLERY

Bench: S.SUJATHA,VINEET KOTHARI

145 ITR 323 (Kar): TC 44R. 1060 distinguished” CASE LAWS RELIED UPON BY THE RESPONDENT – ASSESSEE: 50. 50. Mr. A. Shankar, the learned counsel appearing for the Respondent Assessee who has not Date of Judgment 25-09-2018 I.T.A.No.155/2016 and connected matters The Pr. Commissioner of Income Tax & Ors. Vs. M/s. Chamundi Winery and Distillery 96/137 only painstakingly prepared

R JANARDHANA BABU vs. THE MANAGING DIRECTOR

Accordingly, the writ petitions are allowed

Bench: The Hon’Ble Mr. Justice B. Veerappa

145. Elizebeth Tarsius, d/o D Devaraj, aged about years, Glaxosmithkline Pharmaceuticals Limited, Devanahalli Road, Off Old Madras Road, Bangalore-560049 146. Lezinda Francis, d/o A J Thomas, aged about 58 years, Glaxosmithkline Pharmaceuticals Limited, Devanahalli Road, Off Old Madras Road, Bangalore-560049 147. Dayamani Dhanpal, d/o Selvaraj, aged about 58 years, Glaxosmithkline Pharmaceuticals Limited, Devanahalli Road, Off Old Madras Road

DR H KRISHNA vs. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER INCOME TAX

In the result, we do not find

Bench: ALOK ARADHE,H.T. NARENDRA PRASAD

3. The assessee thereupon filed an appeal before the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) who by an order dated 22.08.2011 partly allowed the appeal preferred by the assessee. The revenue thereupon approached the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (hereinafter referred to as 'the tribunal' for short). The tribunal by an order dated 08.08.2014 inter alia held that there is no corroborative

M/S DELHI INTERNATIONAL AIRPORT LTD vs. THE PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX

Bench: S.SUJATHA,S VISHWAJITH SHETTY

3) r/w 153A of the Act for the assessment year under consideration disallowing the claim of the assessee under Section 40(a)(ia) of the Act being the amount of collection charges retained by the airlines on collection - 9 - of passenger service fees amongst other disallowance. Being aggrieved, the appellant preferred an appeal before the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals

THE PR. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, vs. M/S. DELHI INTERNATIONAL AIRPORT PVT. LTD.,

Bench: S.SUJATHA,S VISHWAJITH SHETTY

3) r/w 153A of the Act for the assessment year under consideration disallowing the claim of the assessee under Section 40(a)(ia) of the Act being the amount of collection charges retained by the airlines on collection - 9 - of passenger service fees amongst other disallowance. Being aggrieved, the appellant preferred an appeal before the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals

THE PR. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, vs. M/S. DELHI INTERNATIONAL AIRPORT PVT. LTD.,

Bench: S.SUJATHA,S VISHWAJITH SHETTY

3) r/w 153A of the Act for the assessment year under consideration disallowing the claim of the assessee under Section 40(a)(ia) of the Act being the amount of collection charges retained by the airlines on collection - 9 - of passenger service fees amongst other disallowance. Being aggrieved, the appellant preferred an appeal before the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals

THE PR. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, vs. M/S. DELHI INTERNATIONAL AIRPORT PVT. LTD.

Bench: S.SUJATHA,S VISHWAJITH SHETTY

3) r/w 153A of the Act for the assessment year under consideration disallowing the claim of the assessee under Section 40(a)(ia) of the Act being the amount of collection charges retained by the airlines on collection - 9 - of passenger service fees amongst other disallowance. Being aggrieved, the appellant preferred an appeal before the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals

M/S DELHI INTERNATIONAL vs. THE PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER

Bench: S.SUJATHA,S VISHWAJITH SHETTY

3) r/w 153A of the Act for the assessment year under consideration disallowing the claim of the assessee under Section 40(a)(ia) of the Act being the amount of collection charges retained by the airlines on collection - 9 - of passenger service fees amongst other disallowance. Being aggrieved, the appellant preferred an appeal before the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals

M/S DELHI INTERNATIONAL AIRPORT LTD vs. THE PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX

Bench: S.SUJATHA,S VISHWAJITH SHETTY

3) r/w 153A of the Act for the assessment year under consideration disallowing the claim of the assessee under Section 40(a)(ia) of the Act being the amount of collection charges retained by the airlines on collection - 9 - of passenger service fees amongst other disallowance. Being aggrieved, the appellant preferred an appeal before the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals

RAMA vs. STATE OF KARNATAKA

Bench: ARAVIND KUMAR,B.A.PATIL

3 . THE TAHASILDHAR HIREKERUR TALUK HAVERI - 581 111. …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. PRABHULING K NAVADAGI, AG A/W SRI. V. SREENIDHI, AGA AND SMT. KAVITHA H.C, HCGP FOR R-1 & R-3 R-2 SERVED) THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO DECLARE THE PROVISIONS OF SECTIONS

SRI. GURUPRASAD vs. GOVERNMENT OF KARNATAKA

Bench: ARAVIND KUMAR,B.A.PATIL

3 . THE TAHASILDHAR HIREKERUR TALUK HAVERI - 581 111. …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. PRABHULING K NAVADAGI, AG A/W SRI. V. SREENIDHI, AGA AND SMT. KAVITHA H.C, HCGP FOR R-1 & R-3 R-2 SERVED) THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO DECLARE THE PROVISIONS OF SECTIONS

P. D. PONNAPPA vs. STATE OF KARNATAKA

Bench: ARAVIND KUMAR,B.A.PATIL

3 . THE TAHASILDHAR HIREKERUR TALUK HAVERI - 581 111. …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. PRABHULING K NAVADAGI, AG A/W SRI. V. SREENIDHI, AGA AND SMT. KAVITHA H.C, HCGP FOR R-1 & R-3 R-2 SERVED) THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO DECLARE THE PROVISIONS OF SECTIONS