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

Of the Department's clouded interpretation of the Centum

Bench: ANAND BYRAREDDY

34 Attention is drawn to Section 2 of the KVAT ( Amendment) Act, 2015, wherein it is indicated that "It shall come into force with effect from the 1st day of April, 2015" and hence the intention of the legislature is that the substitution of Section 10(3) made by the Amendment is prospective in effect and not retrospective

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

Of the Department's clouded interpretation of the Centum

Bench: ANAND BYRAREDDY

34 Attention is drawn to Section 2 of the KVAT ( Amendment) Act, 2015, wherein it is indicated that "It shall come into force with effect from the 1st day of April, 2015" and hence the intention of the legislature is that the substitution of Section 10(3) made by the Amendment is prospective in effect and not retrospective

DEPA INDIA PRIVATE LTD. vs. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA

Of the Department's clouded interpretation of the Centum

Bench: ANAND BYRAREDDY

34 Attention is drawn to Section 2 of the KVAT ( Amendment) Act, 2015, wherein it is indicated that "It shall come into force with effect from the 1st day of April, 2015" and hence the intention of the legislature is that the substitution of Section 10(3) made by the Amendment is prospective in effect and not retrospective

ACE DESIGNERS LIMITED vs. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA

Of the Department's clouded interpretation of the Centum

Bench: ANAND BYRAREDDY

34 Attention is drawn to Section 2 of the KVAT ( Amendment) Act, 2015, wherein it is indicated that "It shall come into force with effect from the 1st day of April, 2015" and hence the intention of the legislature is that the substitution of Section 10(3) made by the Amendment is prospective in effect and not retrospective

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

Of the Department's clouded interpretation of the Centum

Bench: ANAND BYRAREDDY

34 Attention is drawn to Section 2 of the KVAT ( Amendment) Act, 2015, wherein it is indicated that "It shall come into force with effect from the 1st day of April, 2015" and hence the intention of the legislature is that the substitution of Section 10(3) made by the Amendment is prospective in effect and not retrospective

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

Of the Department's clouded interpretation of the Centum

Bench: ANAND BYRAREDDY

34 Attention is drawn to Section 2 of the KVAT ( Amendment) Act, 2015, wherein it is indicated that "It shall come into force with effect from the 1st day of April, 2015" and hence the intention of the legislature is that the substitution of Section 10(3) made by the Amendment is prospective in effect and not retrospective

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

Of the Department's clouded interpretation of the Centum

Bench: ANAND BYRAREDDY

34 Attention is drawn to Section 2 of the KVAT ( Amendment) Act, 2015, wherein it is indicated that "It shall come into force with effect from the 1st day of April, 2015" and hence the intention of the legislature is that the substitution of Section 10(3) made by the Amendment is prospective in effect and not retrospective

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 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

34,10,000/- debited towards commission on sales of profit and loss account without TDS was not disallowed under Section

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

The appeals stand disposed of, accordingly

Bench: N.KUMAR,B.SREENIVASE GOWDA

34 - of Section 4 of the Act. However, subject to the assessee satisfying the conditions prescribed income under Section 10-A is exempted from making such payment. Once the assessee is made to pay tax on such exempted income in the other contracting State then Section 90(1)(a)(ii) enables him to claim credit of the tax paid

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

The appeals stand disposed of, accordingly

Bench: N.KUMAR,B.SREENIVASE GOWDA

34 - of Section 4 of the Act. However, subject to the assessee satisfying the conditions prescribed income under Section 10-A is exempted from making such payment. Once the assessee is made to pay tax on such exempted income in the other contracting State then Section 90(1)(a)(ii) enables him to claim credit of the tax paid

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

HINDUSTAN AERONAUTICS LIMITED vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER

In the result, the order of the

Bench: ALOK ARADHE,H.T. NARENDRA PRASAD

disallowance was made for the Assessment Year 2009-10. 8. With regard to claim of the assessee under Section 14A of the Act, it is pointed out that assessee had earned dividend income from two companies, in which it had made strategic investments, which was exempt under Section 10(34

THE PR COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX vs. M/S HINDUSTAN AERONAUTICS LTD

In the result, the order of the

Bench: ALOK ARADHE,H.T. NARENDRA PRASAD

disallowance was made for the Assessment Year 2009-10. 8. With regard to claim of the assessee under Section 14A of the Act, it is pointed out that assessee had earned dividend income from two companies, in which it had made strategic investments, which was exempt under Section 10(34

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

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

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

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

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

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