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

Of the Department's clouded interpretation of the Centum

Bench: ANAND BYRAREDDY

27 in a month other than the month in which the purchase invoices were raised. Thereafter, apparently, realising the Revenue’s folly, the Legislature substituted Section 10(3) vide the Karnataka Value Added Tax (Amendment) Act, 2015, (“the 2015 KVAT Amendment Act” for short). The new provision, which was inserted by way of a substitution, provided that input tax credit

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

Of the Department's clouded interpretation of the Centum

Bench: ANAND BYRAREDDY

27 in a month other than the month in which the purchase invoices were raised. Thereafter, apparently, realising the Revenue’s folly, the Legislature substituted Section 10(3) vide the Karnataka Value Added Tax (Amendment) Act, 2015, (“the 2015 KVAT Amendment Act” for short). The new provision, which was inserted by way of a substitution, provided that input tax credit

KAVERI PLASTO CONTAINERS PVT LTD vs. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA

Of the Department's clouded interpretation of the Centum

Bench: ANAND BYRAREDDY

27 in a month other than the month in which the purchase invoices were raised. Thereafter, apparently, realising the Revenue’s folly, the Legislature substituted Section 10(3) vide the Karnataka Value Added Tax (Amendment) Act, 2015, (“the 2015 KVAT Amendment Act” for short). The new provision, which was inserted by way of a substitution, provided that input tax credit

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

Of the Department's clouded interpretation of the Centum

Bench: ANAND BYRAREDDY

27 in a month other than the month in which the purchase invoices were raised. Thereafter, apparently, realising the Revenue’s folly, the Legislature substituted Section 10(3) vide the Karnataka Value Added Tax (Amendment) Act, 2015, (“the 2015 KVAT Amendment Act” for short). The new provision, which was inserted by way of a substitution, provided that input tax credit

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

Of the Department's clouded interpretation of the Centum

Bench: ANAND BYRAREDDY

27 in a month other than the month in which the purchase invoices were raised. Thereafter, apparently, realising the Revenue’s folly, the Legislature substituted Section 10(3) vide the Karnataka Value Added Tax (Amendment) Act, 2015, (“the 2015 KVAT Amendment Act” for short). The new provision, which was inserted by way of a substitution, provided that input tax credit

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

Of the Department's clouded interpretation of the Centum

Bench: ANAND BYRAREDDY

27 in a month other than the month in which the purchase invoices were raised. Thereafter, apparently, realising the Revenue’s folly, the Legislature substituted Section 10(3) vide the Karnataka Value Added Tax (Amendment) Act, 2015, (“the 2015 KVAT Amendment Act” for short). The new provision, which was inserted by way of a substitution, provided that input tax credit

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

Of the Department's clouded interpretation of the Centum

Bench: ANAND BYRAREDDY

27 in a month other than the month in which the purchase invoices were raised. Thereafter, apparently, realising the Revenue’s folly, the Legislature substituted Section 10(3) vide the Karnataka Value Added Tax (Amendment) Act, 2015, (“the 2015 KVAT Amendment Act” for short). The new provision, which was inserted by way of a substitution, provided that input tax credit

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

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

10 - Central Revenue Building Queens Road, Bangalore 560001. …RESPONDENT (By Sri E.R.Indrakumar, Senior Counsel for Sri K.V.Aravind, Adv.) . . . . This I.T.A. is filed under Section 260-A of I.T.Act, 1961 arising out of order dated 31.10.2008 passed in ITA No.624/BANG/2007, for the assessment year 2003-2004, praying to I) Formulate the substantial questions of law stated therein, II) Allow the appeal

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

The appeals stand disposed of, accordingly

Bench: N.KUMAR,B.SREENIVASE GOWDA

10 - Central Revenue Building Queens Road, Bangalore 560001. …RESPONDENT (By Sri E.R.Indrakumar, Senior Counsel for Sri K.V.Aravind, Adv.) . . . . This I.T.A. is filed under Section 260-A of I.T.Act, 1961 arising out of order dated 31.10.2008 passed in ITA No.624/BANG/2007, for the assessment year 2003-2004, praying to I) Formulate the substantial questions of law stated therein, II) Allow the appeal

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 PR COMMISSIONER OF vs. M/S MAHAVEER CALYX

Bench: SATISH CHANDRA SHARMA,V SRISHANANDA

27,310/- under Rule 8D(2)(II) while making the disallowance under Section 14A of the Act 6 without appreciating that, when the interest 3 expenses incurred cannot be directly attributed to any particular income or receipt, provision of rule 8D(2)(ii) automatically becomes applicable? (ii) Whether the tribunal is correct in deleting the disallowance under Section

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): Particulars Disputed Income Disputed tax [i.e., tax @ 33.99% on disputed income] Payable under DTVST Act @s 50% of tax As per Petitioner 42,92,10,516 14,58,88,654 7,29,44,327 As per Revenue 80,19,59,658 27

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): Particulars Disputed Income Disputed tax [i.e., tax @ 33.99% on disputed income] Payable under DTVST Act @s 50% of tax As per Petitioner 42,92,10,516 14,58,88,654 7,29,44,327 As per Revenue 80,19,59,658 27

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/- 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 PR. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX vs. M/S CISCO SYSTEMS

The appeals are allowed; the impugned

Bench: SATISH CHANDRA SHARMA,R. NATARAJ

disallowed the excess depreciation claimed on networking equipments. 3. The Principal Commissioner of Income Tax, Bengaluru, thereafter issued a notice under Section 263 of the Act of 1961 on 5.3.2015 and called upon the assessee to explain as to why the assessment order passed by the assessing officer under Section 143(3) of the Act of 1961 should

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