KAVERI PLASTO CONTAINERS PVT LTD vs. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA

Of the Department's clouded interpretation of the Centum

Bench: ANAND BYRAREDDY

26 is however, wholly misplaced as that was a case where the dealer, having apparently accounted for his purchases in June 2006, claimed credit of the tax paid on the purchases in the month of February 2007. Noting that credit ought to have been claimed in the month of June 2006 an error that could have been rectified by filing

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

Of the Department's clouded interpretation of the Centum

Bench: ANAND BYRAREDDY

26 is however, wholly misplaced as that was a case where the dealer, having apparently accounted for his purchases in June 2006, claimed credit of the tax paid on the purchases in the month of February 2007. Noting that credit ought to have been claimed in the month of June 2006 an error that could have been rectified by filing

DEPA INDIA PRIVATE LTD. vs. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA

Of the Department's clouded interpretation of the Centum

Bench: ANAND BYRAREDDY

26 is however, wholly misplaced as that was a case where the dealer, having apparently accounted for his purchases in June 2006, claimed credit of the tax paid on the purchases in the month of February 2007. Noting that credit ought to have been claimed in the month of June 2006 an error that could have been rectified by filing

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

Of the Department's clouded interpretation of the Centum

Bench: ANAND BYRAREDDY

26 is however, wholly misplaced as that was a case where the dealer, having apparently accounted for his purchases in June 2006, claimed credit of the tax paid on the purchases in the month of February 2007. Noting that credit ought to have been claimed in the month of June 2006 an error that could have been rectified by filing

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

Of the Department's clouded interpretation of the Centum

Bench: ANAND BYRAREDDY

26 is however, wholly misplaced as that was a case where the dealer, having apparently accounted for his purchases in June 2006, claimed credit of the tax paid on the purchases in the month of February 2007. Noting that credit ought to have been claimed in the month of June 2006 an error that could have been rectified by filing

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

Of the Department's clouded interpretation of the Centum

Bench: ANAND BYRAREDDY

26 is however, wholly misplaced as that was a case where the dealer, having apparently accounted for his purchases in June 2006, claimed credit of the tax paid on the purchases in the month of February 2007. Noting that credit ought to have been claimed in the month of June 2006 an error that could have been rectified by filing

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

Of the Department's clouded interpretation of the Centum

Bench: ANAND BYRAREDDY

26 is however, wholly misplaced as that was a case where the dealer, having apparently accounted for his purchases in June 2006, claimed credit of the tax paid on the purchases in the month of February 2007. Noting that credit ought to have been claimed in the month of June 2006 an error that could have been rectified by filing

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

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

disallowed the claim of input tax credit. It is beneficial to refer to the relevant paragraphs which reads thus: “12. It is contended on behalf of the assessee that, once input tax has been paid, by virtue of Section 10 the assessee is entitled to the rebate of the tax against the output tax notwithstanding the fact that such

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

26,80,417/- for Assessment Year 2010-11 and Rs.6,49,29,278/- for Assessment Year 2011-12 and claimed deduction under 4 Section 80IB(10) of the Act, on its entire income. During the course of assessment proceeding under Section 153(c) read with Section 143(3), on verification of the deduction claimed under Section 80IB(10) the Assessing

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

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

The appeals stand disposed of, accordingly

Bench: N.KUMAR,B.SREENIVASE GOWDA

26. The answer to the question depends on the interpretation to be placed on Section 90 which is found in Chapter IX which deals with Double Taxation Relief. 27. Section 90 deals with agreement with foreign countries or specified territories. The present Section came into force from 01.04.2004. Earlier to that period, Section 90 read as under: - 40 - “90. Agreement

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

The appeals stand disposed of, accordingly

Bench: N.KUMAR,B.SREENIVASE GOWDA

26. The answer to the question depends on the interpretation to be placed on Section 90 which is found in Chapter IX which deals with Double Taxation Relief. 27. Section 90 deals with agreement with foreign countries or specified territories. The present Section came into force from 01.04.2004. Earlier to that period, Section 90 read as under: - 40 - “90. Agreement

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

26,370 Assessment Year - 2009-10 Particulars AY 2009-10 Disallowance of freight charges under section 40(a)(i) of the IT Act 80,19,59,658 Disallowance of Depreciation 13,09,37,839 Disallowance under section 14A of the IT Act 9,03,79,391 7 8. Being aggrieved by the aforesaid assessment orders, the Petitioner filed appeals before

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

26,370 Assessment Year - 2009-10 Particulars AY 2009-10 Disallowance of freight charges under section 40(a)(i) of the IT Act 80,19,59,658 Disallowance of Depreciation 13,09,37,839 Disallowance under section 14A of the IT Act 9,03,79,391 7 8. Being aggrieved by the aforesaid assessment orders, the Petitioner filed appeals before

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

Bench: CHIEF JUSTICE,C M JOSHI

26. Absent any enhancement of income, the proviso to sub- section (4) of Section 92C is clearly inapplicable. 27. It is also necessary to bear in mind that in terms of Section 10AA (1) of the Act, the profits and gains of an enterprise, as referred to in clause (j) of Section 2 of the Special Economic Zones

PR. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-2 vs. M/S.J.J.GLASTRONICS PVT LTD

The appeal stands dismissed

Bench: S.SUJATHA,J.M.KHAZI

26-B, ELECTRONICS CITY HOSUR ROAD, BANGALORE-560100 PAN: AAACJ4330P. …RESPONDENT (BY SRI SHREEHARI KUTSA, ADV.) THIS INCOME TAX APPEAL IS FILED UNDER SECTION 260-A OF INCOME TAX ACT 1961, ARISING OUT OF ORDER DATED 22.01.2020 AND 10.04.2019 PASSED IN M.P.No.142/BANG/2019 AND ITA No.1518/BANG/2018 [ANNEXURE – A AND B] FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2013-14, PRAYING TO: [1] DECIDE

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

26,05,318/-. 2. It has been observed that the amount of Rs.36,34,10,000/- towards commission on Sales debited by the assessee to P & L account without TDS, was not disallowed u/s 40(a)(ia) in the assessment order. Failure to do so has resulted in short computation of income of Rs. 10

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

The appeals are dismissed

Bench: S.SUJATHA,N.K.PATIL

disallowing a double deduction will be meaningless even in respect of the previous years for which deduction is allowed under S.10(2) (xiv) /S.35 in respect of the same asset. If that were the correct principle, The assessee should logically be entitled to deduction by way of depreciation for allprevious years including those for which allowance have been granted under