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

Of the Department's clouded interpretation of the Centum

Bench: ANAND BYRAREDDY

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 provision, the said provision must be given

KAVERI PLASTO CONTAINERS PVT LTD vs. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA

Of the Department's clouded interpretation of the Centum

Bench: ANAND BYRAREDDY

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 provision, the said provision must be given

DEPA INDIA PRIVATE LTD. vs. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA

Of the Department's clouded interpretation of the Centum

Bench: ANAND BYRAREDDY

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 provision, the said provision must be given

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

Of the Department's clouded interpretation of the Centum

Bench: ANAND BYRAREDDY

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 provision, the said provision must be given

ACE DESIGNERS LIMITED vs. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA

Of the Department's clouded interpretation of the Centum

Bench: ANAND BYRAREDDY

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 provision, the said provision must be given

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

Of the Department's clouded interpretation of the Centum

Bench: ANAND BYRAREDDY

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 provision, the said provision must be given

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

Of the Department's clouded interpretation of the Centum

Bench: ANAND BYRAREDDY

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 provision, the said provision must be given

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

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

29 [x x x] and is with the registered dealer taking the deduction at the time any return in respect of the sale is furnished, except such tax paid under sub- section [2] of Section 3.” - 20 - 18. The Cognate Bench of this Court in the case of Kirloskar Electricity Co. Ltd., V/s. State of Karnataka and Another, reported

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

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 Officer by an order dated 28.12.2010 inter alia held that

THE PR COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIT(A) vs. M/S KARAVALI HOUSING

In the result, appeal stands dismissed

Bench: S.SUJATHA,RAVI V HOSMANI

disallowing the 3 deduction under Section 80IB(10) as amended by the assessee. On further appeal, the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) relying on his own order under ITA 185/MNG/CI(A)MNG/2012-13 dated 14.03.2013 for the assessment year 2010-11, allowed the assessee’s appeal. Aggrieved by the order of the CIT (A), revenue preferred appeal before the Tribunal. Tribunal

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

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

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

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

The appeals stand disposed of, accordingly

Bench: N.KUMAR,B.SREENIVASE GOWDA

29 - provisions of Section 4 of the Act. In the second instance, no tax was paid on this income. The credit is being claimed under the provisions of Section 90, which is applicable for the grant of relief in respect of income on which have been paid both income tax under this Act and Income Tax in the foreign country

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

The appeals stand disposed of, accordingly

Bench: N.KUMAR,B.SREENIVASE GOWDA

29 - provisions of Section 4 of the Act. In the second instance, no tax was paid on this income. The credit is being claimed under the provisions of Section 90, which is applicable for the grant of relief in respect of income on which have been paid both income tax under this Act and Income Tax in the foreign country

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 INCOME-TAX vs. M/S. TE CONNECTIVITY INDIA PVT. LTD.,

Accordingly dispose of the appeal as allowed

Bench: ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE,S RACHAIAH

10. In view of the above discussion, the assessment order u/s 143(3) is erroneous and prejudicial to the interests of Revenue in terms of section 263. The assessment order is accordingly, set aside for this purpose and the AO is directed under section 263, to make a fresh assessment in - 29 - ITA No.53 of 2024 accordance with law, after

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