SONAL APPAREL 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

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

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

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

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

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

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 80JJAA of the Act by holding that the employees in software industry

THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX vs. M/S BPL SANYO FINANCE LTD

In the result, the appeal filed by the revenue is

Bench: The Tribunal Was Arising From The Order Dated 4Th June 2004 Passed By The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) Bangalore (For Short “The

10. It is in this backdrop and having regard to the report of survey, a request was made by the assessee to allow them to withdraw their claim of 100% depreciation on the rolls and as a result thereof, the assessment order was passed by the AO on 15th March 2002. 11. Simultaneously penalty proceedings under Section 271 (1) (c

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

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

The appeals stand dismissed

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

disallowance has been sought to be made by invoking Section 13(1)(c) primarily on the ground that the concerns have earned higher profits, as reflected in their statements of profit and loss. 9. It is also contended that the concerns have paid higher remuneration to their Directors. However, there is no comparative material placed on record to demonstrate that

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

The appeals are dismissed

Bench: S.SUJATHA,N.K.PATIL

c) of the Act. The question herein revolves around Section 11 of the Act. For the purpose of narrating the facts, we are considering ITA 8 No.62/2010. The assessments for the assessment year 2005-06 were concluded under Section 144 of the Act denying exemption under Section 10(23) of the Act. The addition of income was made on account

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

The appeals are dismissed

Bench: S.SUJATHA,N.K.PATIL

c) of the Act. The question herein revolves around Section 11 of the Act. For the purpose of narrating the facts, we are considering ITA 8 No.62/2010. The assessments for the assessment year 2005-06 were concluded under Section 144 of the Act denying exemption under Section 10(23) of the Act. The addition of income was made on account

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

The appeals are dismissed

Bench: S.SUJATHA,N.K.PATIL

c) of the Act. The question herein revolves around Section 11 of the Act. For the purpose of narrating the facts, we are considering ITA 8 No.62/2010. The assessments for the assessment year 2005-06 were concluded under Section 144 of the Act denying exemption under Section 10(23) of the Act. The addition of income was made on account

COMMISSIONER OF INCOME vs. SRI ADICHUNCHANAGIRI

The appeals are dismissed

Bench: S.SUJATHA,N.K.PATIL

c) of the Act. The question herein revolves around Section 11 of the Act. For the purpose of narrating the facts, we are considering ITA 8 No.62/2010. The assessments for the assessment year 2005-06 were concluded under Section 144 of the Act denying exemption under Section 10(23) of the Act. The addition of income was made on account

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

The appeals are dismissed

Bench: S.SUJATHA,N.K.PATIL

c) of the Act. The question herein revolves around Section 11 of the Act. For the purpose of narrating the facts, we are considering ITA 8 No.62/2010. The assessments for the assessment year 2005-06 were concluded under Section 144 of the Act denying exemption under Section 10(23) of the Act. The addition of income was made on account

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

The appeals are dismissed

Bench: S.SUJATHA,N.K.PATIL

c) of the Act. The question herein revolves around Section 11 of the Act. For the purpose of narrating the facts, we are considering ITA 8 No.62/2010. The assessments for the assessment year 2005-06 were concluded under Section 144 of the Act denying exemption under Section 10(23) of the Act. The addition of income was made on account