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

Of the Department's clouded interpretation of the Centum

Bench: ANAND BYRAREDDY

23 of the invoice of the supplier/vendor falls or the purchasing dealer has to claim input tax credit in the same period in which the bills have been raised by the selling dealer.” In the said case, this court therefore confirmed the petitioner’s understanding that there was no time limit prescribed under the provisions of the KVAT

ACE DESIGNERS LIMITED vs. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA

Of the Department's clouded interpretation of the Centum

Bench: ANAND BYRAREDDY

23 of the invoice of the supplier/vendor falls or the purchasing dealer has to claim input tax credit in the same period in which the bills have been raised by the selling dealer.” In the said case, this court therefore confirmed the petitioner’s understanding that there was no time limit prescribed under the provisions of the KVAT

KAVERI PLASTO CONTAINERS PVT LTD vs. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA

Of the Department's clouded interpretation of the Centum

Bench: ANAND BYRAREDDY

23 of the invoice of the supplier/vendor falls or the purchasing dealer has to claim input tax credit in the same period in which the bills have been raised by the selling dealer.” In the said case, this court therefore confirmed the petitioner’s understanding that there was no time limit prescribed under the provisions of the KVAT

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

Of the Department's clouded interpretation of the Centum

Bench: ANAND BYRAREDDY

23 of the invoice of the supplier/vendor falls or the purchasing dealer has to claim input tax credit in the same period in which the bills have been raised by the selling dealer.” In the said case, this court therefore confirmed the petitioner’s understanding that there was no time limit prescribed under the provisions of the KVAT

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

Of the Department's clouded interpretation of the Centum

Bench: ANAND BYRAREDDY

23 of the invoice of the supplier/vendor falls or the purchasing dealer has to claim input tax credit in the same period in which the bills have been raised by the selling dealer.” In the said case, this court therefore confirmed the petitioner’s understanding that there was no time limit prescribed under the provisions of the KVAT

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

Of the Department's clouded interpretation of the Centum

Bench: ANAND BYRAREDDY

23 of the invoice of the supplier/vendor falls or the purchasing dealer has to claim input tax credit in the same period in which the bills have been raised by the selling dealer.” In the said case, this court therefore confirmed the petitioner’s understanding that there was no time limit prescribed under the provisions of the KVAT

DEPA INDIA PRIVATE LTD. vs. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA

Of the Department's clouded interpretation of the Centum

Bench: ANAND BYRAREDDY

23 of the invoice of the supplier/vendor falls or the purchasing dealer has to claim input tax credit in the same period in which the bills have been raised by the selling dealer.” In the said case, this court therefore confirmed the petitioner’s understanding that there was no time limit prescribed under the provisions of the KVAT

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

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

23. In the case of State of Karnataka Vs. Centum Industries Private Limited case, reported in [2015] 77 VST 117 [Karn], The Division Bench of this Court interpreting Section 10[3] of the Act inasmuch as the belated claim made by the assessee much after the lapse of a reasonable period, 6 months, disallowed

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 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

23 - ITA No.53 of 2024 Rs.36,34,10,000/- 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

THE DIRECTOR OF INCOME TAX vs. M/S GOKULA EDUCATION FOUNDATION (MEDICAL)

The appeals are dismissed

Bench: S.SUJATHA,N.K.PATIL

Section 10(23) of the Act. The addition of income was made on account of disallowance of depreciation by the Assessing

THE DIRECTOR OF INCOME TAX vs. M/S GOKULA EDUCATION FOUNDATION

The appeals are dismissed

Bench: S.SUJATHA,N.K.PATIL

Section 10(23) of the Act. The addition of income was made on account of disallowance of depreciation by the Assessing

THE DIRECTOR OF INCOME TAX EXEMPTIONS vs. AL-AMEEN CHARITABLE FUND TRUST

The appeals are dismissed

Bench: S.SUJATHA,N.K.PATIL

Section 10(23) of the Act. The addition of income was made on account of disallowance of depreciation by the Assessing

THE DIRECTOR OF INCOME TAX vs. INTERNATIONAL INSTITUTE OF INFORMATION TECHNOLOGY

The appeals are dismissed

Bench: S.SUJATHA,N.K.PATIL

Section 10(23) of the Act. The addition of income was made on account of disallowance of depreciation by the Assessing

THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX vs. M/S KARNATAKA REDDY JANASANGHA

The appeals are dismissed

Bench: S.SUJATHA,N.K.PATIL

Section 10(23) of the Act. The addition of income was made on account of disallowance of depreciation by the Assessing

COMMISSIONER OF INCOME vs. SRI ADICHUNCHANAGIRI

The appeals are dismissed

Bench: S.SUJATHA,N.K.PATIL

Section 10(23) of the Act. The addition of income was made on account of disallowance of depreciation by the Assessing

THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX vs. SRI ADICHUNCHUNGIRI

The appeals are dismissed

Bench: S.SUJATHA,N.K.PATIL

Section 10(23) of the Act. The addition of income was made on account of disallowance of depreciation by the Assessing