KAVERI PLASTO CONTAINERS PVT LTD vs. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA

Of the Department's clouded interpretation of the Centum

Bench: ANAND BYRAREDDY

20 of the next month or even later depending upon the location of the supplier in the State of Karnataka and or actual despatch of goods by its supplier. In such cases, the petitioners will account for the purchases only in the next month after conducting the quantity and quality checks. Therefore, the month in which the goods are accounted

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

Of the Department's clouded interpretation of the Centum

Bench: ANAND BYRAREDDY

20 of the next month or even later depending upon the location of the supplier in the State of Karnataka and or actual despatch of goods by its supplier. In such cases, the petitioners will account for the purchases only in the next month after conducting the quantity and quality checks. Therefore, the month in which the goods are accounted

DEPA INDIA PRIVATE LTD. vs. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA

Of the Department's clouded interpretation of the Centum

Bench: ANAND BYRAREDDY

20 of the next month or even later depending upon the location of the supplier in the State of Karnataka and or actual despatch of goods by its supplier. In such cases, the petitioners will account for the purchases only in the next month after conducting the quantity and quality checks. Therefore, the month in which the goods are accounted

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

Of the Department's clouded interpretation of the Centum

Bench: ANAND BYRAREDDY

20 of the next month or even later depending upon the location of the supplier in the State of Karnataka and or actual despatch of goods by its supplier. In such cases, the petitioners will account for the purchases only in the next month after conducting the quantity and quality checks. Therefore, the month in which the goods are accounted

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

Of the Department's clouded interpretation of the Centum

Bench: ANAND BYRAREDDY

20 of the next month or even later depending upon the location of the supplier in the State of Karnataka and or actual despatch of goods by its supplier. In such cases, the petitioners will account for the purchases only in the next month after conducting the quantity and quality checks. Therefore, the month in which the goods are accounted

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

Of the Department's clouded interpretation of the Centum

Bench: ANAND BYRAREDDY

20 of the next month or even later depending upon the location of the supplier in the State of Karnataka and or actual despatch of goods by its supplier. In such cases, the petitioners will account for the purchases only in the next month after conducting the quantity and quality checks. Therefore, the month in which the goods are accounted

ACE DESIGNERS LIMITED vs. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA

Of the Department's clouded interpretation of the Centum

Bench: ANAND BYRAREDDY

20 of the next month or even later depending upon the location of the supplier in the State of Karnataka and or actual despatch of goods by its supplier. In such cases, the petitioners will account for the purchases only in the next month after conducting the quantity and quality checks. Therefore, the month in which the goods are accounted

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

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

20. In the case of Sonal Apparel Private Limited V/s. State of Karnataka and Another, reported in [2017] 97 VST 488 Karn], the learned single judge of this Court has held in paragraphs 37 as under: “37. Under the KVAT Act, tax is leviable on every sale of goods, irrespective of whether it is the first, second or third sale

THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX vs. M/S. MANDAVI BUILDERS

In the result, the appeal fails and is hereby

Bench: ALOK ARADHE,H.T. NARENDRA PRASAD

20-02-2015 AND CONFIRM THE ORDER OF THE APPELLATE COMMISSIONER CONFIRMING THE ORDER PASSED BY THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE, MANGALORE. THIS ITA COMING ON FOR FURTHER HEARING, THIS DAY, ALOK ARADHE J., DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: JUDGMENT This appeal under Section 260A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as the Act for short

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 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 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

KARNATAKA STATE BEVERAGES CORPORTION LIMITED vs. THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX

Bench: The Hon’Ble Mr. Justice Anand Byrareddy Writ Petition No.12872 Of 2013 (T-It) Connected With Writ Petition No.14687 Of 2014 (T-It), Writ Petition No.15910 Of 2015 (T-It) & Writ Petition No.17514 Of 2015 (T-It) In W.P.No.12872 Of 2013 Between: Karnataka State Beverages Corporation Limited, Represented By It’S Executive Director (Finance), Sri. Shrikant B Vanahalli, Aged About 57 Years, No.78, Seethalakshmi Towers, Mission Road, Bangalore 560 027. …Petitioner

20,039/-, disallowance of provision for ex-gratia Rs.37,52,700/- and disallowance of expenditure on increase in share capital Rs.4,85,000/-, by order dated 26.02.2014. Similarly, an assessment order was passed under Section 143(3) of the Act for the assessment year 2012-13 wherein the Assessing Officer had disallowed the privilege fee of Rs.829

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

The appeals stand disposed of, accordingly

Bench: N.KUMAR,B.SREENIVASE GOWDA

20. However, a finding was recorded that when the assessee is not liable to pay tax in view of the exemption under Section 10-A, the assessee is not entitled to tax relief in respect of taxes paid in the contracting country. - 33 - 21. Therefore, the finding of the Tribunal that credit for income tax paid in other country

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

The appeals stand disposed of, accordingly

Bench: N.KUMAR,B.SREENIVASE GOWDA

20. However, a finding was recorded that when the assessee is not liable to pay tax in view of the exemption under Section 10-A, the assessee is not entitled to tax relief in respect of taxes paid in the contracting country. - 33 - 21. Therefore, the finding of the Tribunal that credit for income tax paid in other country

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) of freight charges 37,28,12,027 42,92,10,516 20. It is relevant

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) of freight charges 37,28,12,027 42,92,10,516 20. It is relevant

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/-. In response thereto, the respondent-assessee had filed reply on 11.12.2018, wherein according to the respondent it has furnished sample agreements and contested the notice by stating that it was not liable to deduct tax at source under Section 194H of the Act. It was the case of the respondent-assessee that, as the issue