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

The appeals stand disposed of, accordingly

Bench: N.KUMAR,B.SREENIVASE GOWDA

10-A is exempted from making such payment. Once the assessee is made to pay tax on such exempted income in the other contracting State then Section 90(1)(a)(ii) enables him to claim credit of the tax paid in the contracting country. Though this provision 90(1)(a)(ii) came on the statute book from

SONAL APPAREL PRIVATE LTD., vs. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA

Of the Department's clouded interpretation of the Centum

Bench: ANAND BYRAREDDY

1), 7(2), 10(2), 10(3) and 10(4); and of the Rule 37 gives the following meanings: a) To support the claim of input tax, there must be a valid tax-invoice. As the tax-invoice is at the base of the input tax claim, the month in which the tax-invoice is issued is the ‘period

INGRAM MICRO INDIA PVT.LTD. vs. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA

Of the Department's clouded interpretation of the Centum

Bench: ANAND BYRAREDDY

1), 7(2), 10(2), 10(3) and 10(4); and of the Rule 37 gives the following meanings: a) To support the claim of input tax, there must be a valid tax-invoice. As the tax-invoice is at the base of the input tax claim, the month in which the tax-invoice is issued is the ‘period

M/S INDIA MOTOR PARTS & ACCESSORIES LTD vs. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF

Of the Department's clouded interpretation of the Centum

Bench: ANAND BYRAREDDY

1), 7(2), 10(2), 10(3) and 10(4); and of the Rule 37 gives the following meanings: a) To support the claim of input tax, there must be a valid tax-invoice. As the tax-invoice is at the base of the input tax claim, the month in which the tax-invoice is issued is the ‘period

ACE DESIGNERS LIMITED vs. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA

Of the Department's clouded interpretation of the Centum

Bench: ANAND BYRAREDDY

1), 7(2), 10(2), 10(3) and 10(4); and of the Rule 37 gives the following meanings: a) To support the claim of input tax, there must be a valid tax-invoice. As the tax-invoice is at the base of the input tax claim, the month in which the tax-invoice is issued is the ‘period

DEPA INDIA PRIVATE LTD. vs. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA

Of the Department's clouded interpretation of the Centum

Bench: ANAND BYRAREDDY

1), 7(2), 10(2), 10(3) and 10(4); and of the Rule 37 gives the following meanings: a) To support the claim of input tax, there must be a valid tax-invoice. As the tax-invoice is at the base of the input tax claim, the month in which the tax-invoice is issued is the ‘period

M/S. HINDUSTAN COCA COLA vs. STATE OF KARNATAKA

Of the Department's clouded interpretation of the Centum

Bench: ANAND BYRAREDDY

1), 7(2), 10(2), 10(3) and 10(4); and of the Rule 37 gives the following meanings: a) To support the claim of input tax, there must be a valid tax-invoice. As the tax-invoice is at the base of the input tax claim, the month in which the tax-invoice is issued is the ‘period

KAVERI PLASTO CONTAINERS PVT LTD vs. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA

Of the Department's clouded interpretation of the Centum

Bench: ANAND BYRAREDDY

1), 7(2), 10(2), 10(3) and 10(4); and of the Rule 37 gives the following meanings: a) To support the claim of input tax, there must be a valid tax-invoice. As the tax-invoice is at the base of the input tax claim, the month in which the tax-invoice is issued is the ‘period

INGRAM MICRO INDIA PVT. LTD. vs. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA

Of the Department's clouded interpretation of the Centum

Bench: ANAND BYRAREDDY

1), 7(2), 10(2), 10(3) and 10(4); and of the Rule 37 gives the following meanings: a) To support the claim of input tax, there must be a valid tax-invoice. As the tax-invoice is at the base of the input tax claim, the month in which the tax-invoice is issued is the ‘period

M/S. HINDUSTAN COCA COLA vs. STATE OF KARNATAKA

Of the Department's clouded interpretation of the Centum

Bench: ANAND BYRAREDDY

1), 7(2), 10(2), 10(3) and 10(4); and of the Rule 37 gives the following meanings: a) To support the claim of input tax, there must be a valid tax-invoice. As the tax-invoice is at the base of the input tax claim, the month in which the tax-invoice is issued is the ‘period

M/S ANS CONSTRUCTIONS LTD vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF COMMERCIAL

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

disallowed the claim of input tax credit. It is beneficial to refer to the relevant paragraphs which reads thus: “12. It is contended on behalf of the assessee that, once input tax has been paid, by virtue of Section 10 the assessee is entitled to the rebate of the tax against the output tax notwithstanding the fact that such

THE PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER vs. M/S OBULAPURAM MINING

Bench: K.SOMASHEKAR,UMESH M ADIGA

10, the learned AR of the assessee submitted that three issues are involved in this ground i.e. 1) Disallowance of Transportation charges, 2) Disallowance of Expenses under Explanation to section

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

Bench: K.SOMASHEKAR,UMESH M ADIGA

1(3), Bangalore dated 31.03.2013, further an appeal was preferred before the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) – VI wherein the appellate order and ground of decision was passed. The assessments under Section 153C read with Section 144 of the IT Act for assessment years 2005-06 to 2010-11 and under Section 153D read with Section 144 for the assessment

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

Bench: K.SOMASHEKAR,UMESH M ADIGA

1(3), Bangalore dated 31.03.2013 an appeal was preferred before the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) – VI wherein the appellate order and ground of decision was passed. The assessments under Section 153C read with Section 144 of the IT Act for assessment years 2005-06 to 2010-11 and under Section 154D read with Section 144 for the assessment year

COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, vs. SHREE RENUKA SUGARS LTD.,

The Appeals are allowed

Bench: K.BHAKTHAVATSALA,B.SREENIVASE GOWDA

Sections 148 and 142(1) of the Income Tax Act were issued to the assessee to re-work the depreciation over the years and the opening of Written Down Value of the assets of the co-generation plant. After affording 4 an opportunity to the assessee, assessment orders dated 22.12.2008 and 17.12.2008 were passed disallowing the claim for depreciation

M/S SAFINA HOTELS PRIVATE LIMITED vs. THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX

Appeal is allowed

Bench: S.SUJATHA,N.K.PATIL

10 and 11 were raised by the assessee for consideration before this Court. Now, the relevant 3 substantial questions of law which arises for consideration in this appeal reads thus: 1. Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Honouable Tribunal was right in law in upholding the penalty levied under Section 271 (1) (c) although

COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-III vs. M/S SYNDICATE BANK

The appeals are disposed of

Bench: ALOK ARADHE,RAVI V HOSMANI

disallowing an amount of Rs.192,53,21,426/- on reversal of interest pertaining to earlier years as deduction out of current years income and added back to interest on zero coupon bonds to the tune of RS.1,03,53,095/- along with other additions/disallowance in computation of regular income/book profit. It was held that as per section 36(1)(viia

PR. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-2 vs. M/S.J.J.GLASTRONICS PVT LTD

The appeal stands dismissed

Bench: S.SUJATHA,J.M.KHAZI

disallowed under section 14A cannot be added to the book profits computed under Section 115JB. 10. Similarly, in the case of Commissioner of Income Tax vs. Gokaldas Images (P) Ltd., reported in - 14 - (2020) 429 ITR 526 (Kar.), having regard to Clause (f) of Explanation 1