DEPA INDIA PRIVATE LTD. vs. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA

Of the Department's clouded interpretation of the Centum

Bench: ANAND BYRAREDDY

13 …PETITIONER (By Shri K.P.Kumar, Senior Advocate for Shri T. Suryanarayana, Advocate) AND: 1. The State of Karnataka, Represented herein by the Principal Secretary – Finance Department, Government of Karnataka, Vidhana Soudha, Bangalore 560 001. 2. The Deputy Commissioner of Commercial Taxes, (Audit – 4.1), Vanijya Therige Karyalaya -2, Koramangala, Bangalore 560 047. …RESPONDENTS (By Shri A.S.Ponnanna, Additional Advocate General

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

Of the Department's clouded interpretation of the Centum

Bench: ANAND BYRAREDDY

13 …PETITIONER (By Shri K.P.Kumar, Senior Advocate for Shri T. Suryanarayana, Advocate) AND: 1. The State of Karnataka, Represented herein by the Principal Secretary – Finance Department, Government of Karnataka, Vidhana Soudha, Bangalore 560 001. 2. The Deputy Commissioner of Commercial Taxes, (Audit – 4.1), Vanijya Therige Karyalaya -2, Koramangala, Bangalore 560 047. …RESPONDENTS (By Shri A.S.Ponnanna, Additional Advocate General

ACE DESIGNERS LIMITED vs. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA

Of the Department's clouded interpretation of the Centum

Bench: ANAND BYRAREDDY

13 …PETITIONER (By Shri K.P.Kumar, Senior Advocate for Shri T. Suryanarayana, Advocate) AND: 1. The State of Karnataka, Represented herein by the Principal Secretary – Finance Department, Government of Karnataka, Vidhana Soudha, Bangalore 560 001. 2. The Deputy Commissioner of Commercial Taxes, (Audit – 4.1), Vanijya Therige Karyalaya -2, Koramangala, Bangalore 560 047. …RESPONDENTS (By Shri A.S.Ponnanna, Additional Advocate General

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

Of the Department's clouded interpretation of the Centum

Bench: ANAND BYRAREDDY

13 …PETITIONER (By Shri K.P.Kumar, Senior Advocate for Shri T. Suryanarayana, Advocate) AND: 1. The State of Karnataka, Represented herein by the Principal Secretary – Finance Department, Government of Karnataka, Vidhana Soudha, Bangalore 560 001. 2. The Deputy Commissioner of Commercial Taxes, (Audit – 4.1), Vanijya Therige Karyalaya -2, Koramangala, Bangalore 560 047. …RESPONDENTS (By Shri A.S.Ponnanna, Additional Advocate General

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

Of the Department's clouded interpretation of the Centum

Bench: ANAND BYRAREDDY

13 …PETITIONER (By Shri K.P.Kumar, Senior Advocate for Shri T. Suryanarayana, Advocate) AND: 1. The State of Karnataka, Represented herein by the Principal Secretary – Finance Department, Government of Karnataka, Vidhana Soudha, Bangalore 560 001. 2. The Deputy Commissioner of Commercial Taxes, (Audit – 4.1), Vanijya Therige Karyalaya -2, Koramangala, Bangalore 560 047. …RESPONDENTS (By Shri A.S.Ponnanna, Additional Advocate General

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

Of the Department's clouded interpretation of the Centum

Bench: ANAND BYRAREDDY

13 …PETITIONER (By Shri K.P.Kumar, Senior Advocate for Shri T. Suryanarayana, Advocate) AND: 1. The State of Karnataka, Represented herein by the Principal Secretary – Finance Department, Government of Karnataka, Vidhana Soudha, Bangalore 560 001. 2. The Deputy Commissioner of Commercial Taxes, (Audit – 4.1), Vanijya Therige Karyalaya -2, Koramangala, Bangalore 560 047. …RESPONDENTS (By Shri A.S.Ponnanna, Additional Advocate General

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

Of the Department's clouded interpretation of the Centum

Bench: ANAND BYRAREDDY

13 …PETITIONER (By Shri K.P.Kumar, Senior Advocate for Shri T. Suryanarayana, Advocate) AND: 1. The State of Karnataka, Represented herein by the Principal Secretary – Finance Department, Government of Karnataka, Vidhana Soudha, Bangalore 560 001. 2. The Deputy Commissioner of Commercial Taxes, (Audit – 4.1), Vanijya Therige Karyalaya -2, Koramangala, Bangalore 560 047. …RESPONDENTS (By Shri A.S.Ponnanna, Additional Advocate General

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

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

13. Section 38 deals with the assessment of tax. In terms of the said provision, every dealer shall be deemed to have been assessed to tax based on the return filed by him under Section 35, except in cases where the Commissioner may notify the dealer of any requirement of production of accounts before the prescribed authority in support

THE DIRECTOR OF INCOME TAX vs. INDIA HERITAGE FOUNDATION

The appeal is disposed of

Bench: ALOK ARADHE,H.T. NARENDRA PRASAD

disallow the deduction as claimed by the assessee under Section 80IB(10) of the Act and to carry out the assessment 5 afresh in accordance with law after affording an opportunity of hearing to the assessee. 3. Being aggrieved, the assessee filed an appeal before the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Tribunal’, for short). The Tribunal

THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (EXEMPTION) vs. CMR JNANADHARA TRUST

The appeals stand dismissed

Bench: S.G.PANDIT,K. V. ARAVIND

10 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:10978-DB ITA No. 142 of 2025 C/W ITA No. 143 of 2025 ITA No. 144 of 2025 7. The assessee filed its return of income claiming the benefit of exemption under Section 11 of the Act. The Assessing Officer issued notice under Section 143(2) of the Act and undertook scrutiny

THE PR COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX vs. M/S EXIDE LIFE INSURANCE CO LTD

In the result, both the appeals stand dismissed

Bench: S.SUJATHA,RAVI V HOSMANI

disallowance of surplus from shareholders account treated as income from other sources by assessee by holding that surplus available both in Policy Holder’s 6 Account and share Holder’s account is to be consolidated and net surplus only to be taxed as income from business without appreciating that income from life insurance business is treated differently when compared

THE PR COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX vs. M/S EXIDE LIFE INSURANCE COMPANY LTD

In the result, both the appeals stand dismissed

Bench: S.SUJATHA,RAVI V HOSMANI

disallowance of surplus from shareholders account treated as income from other sources by assessee by holding that surplus available both in Policy Holder’s 6 Account and share Holder’s account is to be consolidated and net surplus only to be taxed as income from business without appreciating that income from life insurance business is treated differently when compared

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

10,000/- debited by the assessee to the P & L account towards commission on sales. As the assessee did not do TDS on this amount, the AO should have disallowed this amount u/s 40(a)(ia). The AO has not made this disallowance even though a similar disallowance has been made in AY 13

THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME - TAX vs. M/S. MAHAVEER MARVEL

In the result, the appeal fails and the same is

Bench: ALOK ARADHE,H.T. NARENDRA PRASAD

disallowed and the profits earned from the project in question i.e., Rs.3,05,61,970/- were treated as income and subjected to levy of tax and interest. 3. Being aggrieved, the assessee filed an appeal before the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals). The Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) by an order 5 dated 10.11.2011 inter alia held that after

THE PR COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIT(A) vs. M/S KARAVALI HOUSING

In the result, appeal stands dismissed

Bench: S.SUJATHA,RAVI V HOSMANI

disallowing the 3 deduction under Section 80IB(10) as amended by the assessee. On further appeal, the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) relying on his own order under ITA 185/MNG/CI(A)MNG/2012-13 dated 14.03.2013 for the assessment year 2010-11, allowed the assessee’s appeal. Aggrieved by the order of the CIT (A), revenue preferred appeal before the Tribunal. Tribunal

MANGALORE REFINERY AND PETROCHEMICALS LTD vs. PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX

In the result, I pass the following:-

Bench: The Hon'Ble Mr.Justice S.R.Krishna Kumar

Disallowance under section 40(a)(i): Particulars Disputed Income Disputed tax [i.e., tax @ 33.99% on disputed income] Payable under DTVST Act @s 50% of tax As per Petitioner 42,92,10,516 14,58,88,654 7,29,44,327 As per Revenue 80,19,59,658 27,25,86,088 13

MANGALORE REFINERY AND PETROCHEMICALS LTD vs. PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX

In the result, I pass the following:-

Bench: The Hon'Ble Mr.Justice S.R.Krishna Kumar

Disallowance under section 40(a)(i): Particulars Disputed Income Disputed tax [i.e., tax @ 33.99% on disputed income] Payable under DTVST Act @s 50% of tax As per Petitioner 42,92,10,516 14,58,88,654 7,29,44,327 As per Revenue 80,19,59,658 27,25,86,088 13

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

The appeals stand disposed of, accordingly

Bench: N.KUMAR,B.SREENIVASE GOWDA

10 - Central Revenue Building Queens Road, Bangalore 560001. …RESPONDENT (By Sri E.R.Indrakumar, Senior Counsel for Sri K.V.Aravind, Adv.) . . . . This I.T.A. is filed under Section 260-A of I.T.Act, 1961 arising out of order dated 31.10.2008 passed in ITA No.624/BANG/2007, for the assessment year 2003-2004, praying to I) Formulate the substantial questions of law stated therein, II) Allow the appeal