DEPA INDIA PRIVATE LTD. vs. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA

Of the Department's clouded interpretation of the Centum

Bench: ANAND BYRAREDDY

22 para 30 held that if a 29 legislation confers a benefit on some persons, without inflicting a corresponding detriment on some other person and where to confer such benefit appears to have been the legislator’s object, then the provision would have to be given retrospective effect. Therefore, since Section 10(3) as amended in 2015, is a beneficial

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

Of the Department's clouded interpretation of the Centum

Bench: ANAND BYRAREDDY

22 para 30 held that if a 29 legislation confers a benefit on some persons, without inflicting a corresponding detriment on some other person and where to confer such benefit appears to have been the legislator’s object, then the provision would have to be given retrospective effect. Therefore, since Section 10(3) as amended in 2015, is a beneficial

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

Of the Department's clouded interpretation of the Centum

Bench: ANAND BYRAREDDY

22 para 30 held that if a 29 legislation confers a benefit on some persons, without inflicting a corresponding detriment on some other person and where to confer such benefit appears to have been the legislator’s object, then the provision would have to be given retrospective effect. Therefore, since Section 10(3) as amended in 2015, is a beneficial

KAVERI PLASTO CONTAINERS PVT LTD vs. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA

Of the Department's clouded interpretation of the Centum

Bench: ANAND BYRAREDDY

22 para 30 held that if a 29 legislation confers a benefit on some persons, without inflicting a corresponding detriment on some other person and where to confer such benefit appears to have been the legislator’s object, then the provision would have to be given retrospective effect. Therefore, since Section 10(3) as amended in 2015, is a beneficial

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

Of the Department's clouded interpretation of the Centum

Bench: ANAND BYRAREDDY

22 para 30 held that if a 29 legislation confers a benefit on some persons, without inflicting a corresponding detriment on some other person and where to confer such benefit appears to have been the legislator’s object, then the provision would have to be given retrospective effect. Therefore, since Section 10(3) as amended in 2015, is a beneficial

ACE DESIGNERS LIMITED vs. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA

Of the Department's clouded interpretation of the Centum

Bench: ANAND BYRAREDDY

22 para 30 held that if a 29 legislation confers a benefit on some persons, without inflicting a corresponding detriment on some other person and where to confer such benefit appears to have been the legislator’s object, then the provision would have to be given retrospective effect. Therefore, since Section 10(3) as amended in 2015, is a beneficial

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

Of the Department's clouded interpretation of the Centum

Bench: ANAND BYRAREDDY

22 para 30 held that if a 29 legislation confers a benefit on some persons, without inflicting a corresponding detriment on some other person and where to confer such benefit appears to have been the legislator’s object, then the provision would have to be given retrospective effect. Therefore, since Section 10(3) as amended in 2015, is a beneficial

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

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

22. In the case of A.Balakrishnan V/s. General Manager and Another, reported in ILR 2007 KAR 1336, the learned single judge of this Court in the context of Section 139 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, held that the said provision does not indicate that the - 26 - authorities are barred from processing the return filed under

M/S FIDELITY BUSINESS SERVICES INDIA PVT LTD vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX

Bench: S.SUJATHA,VINEET KOTHARI

10(2)(v) of the Income Tax Act and it allowed the expenditure as “current repairs to the existing machinery”. The Apex Court upholding the said Order of the learned Tribunal held that such Order could be passed within its powers under Section 33(4) of the Act to pass such Orders ‘as it thinks fit’. Date of Judgment

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

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

The appeals stand disposed of, accordingly

Bench: N.KUMAR,B.SREENIVASE GOWDA

22. Sri N.Venkataraman, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the assessee assailing the impugned order contended that a reading of Section 90 makes it clear that Section 90(1)(a)(i) provides, if the income is subjected to tax, both in India and in the foreign country, the foreign income taxes paid attributable to such income is allowed as credit

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

The appeals stand disposed of, accordingly

Bench: N.KUMAR,B.SREENIVASE GOWDA

22. Sri N.Venkataraman, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the assessee assailing the impugned order contended that a reading of Section 90 makes it clear that Section 90(1)(a)(i) provides, if the income is subjected to tax, both in India and in the foreign country, the foreign income taxes paid attributable to such income is allowed as credit

THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX vs. TEXAS INSTRUMENTS INDIA PVT LTD

The appeals are dismissed

Bench: SATISH CHANDRA SHARMA,SURAJ GOVINDARAJ

10. The above appeals were admitted on 8.10.2020 and the following substantial questions of law were formulated: “1. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal is right in law in setting aside the disallowance of Rs.7,57,22,069 made under section

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

10(4) of the 1922 Act was similarly worded as Section 40(a)(ii) with one 17 major difference. In that, the word ‘cess’ was deleted. Thus, in order to bring it into the ambit of disallowance, it would have to be specifically included in the section. It is also pointed out that the words ‘royalty’ or ‘privilege

PR.COMMISSIONER OF INCOMETAX-2 vs. M/S.EYGBS (INDIA) PVT LTD

Bench: CHIEF JUSTICE,C M JOSHI

10-AA of the Act on the ground that the same was occasioned by TP adjustment. The said disallowance was founded on the proviso to Section 92C(4) of the Act. - 12 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:36360-DB ITA No. 107 of 2025 C/W ITA No. 106 of 2025 17. It is material to note that the TP adjustments

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

22,65,77,365 11,32,88,683 AY 2009-10: 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

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

22,65,77,365 11,32,88,683 AY 2009-10: 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