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

Of the Department's clouded interpretation of the Centum

Bench: ANAND BYRAREDDY

disallowed. The provision is therefore very clearly a substantive one in nature. That the legislature by way of amendment of Section 10(3) has retained the tenor of the earlier provision, with only a rider that a claim for input tax being extended by five preceding months. Apart from this change, there is nothing else that is different

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

Of the Department's clouded interpretation of the Centum

Bench: ANAND BYRAREDDY

disallowed. The provision is therefore very clearly a substantive one in nature. That the legislature by way of amendment of Section 10(3) has retained the tenor of the earlier provision, with only a rider that a claim for input tax being extended by five preceding months. Apart from this change, there is nothing else that is different

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

Of the Department's clouded interpretation of the Centum

Bench: ANAND BYRAREDDY

disallowed. The provision is therefore very clearly a substantive one in nature. That the legislature by way of amendment of Section 10(3) has retained the tenor of the earlier provision, with only a rider that a claim for input tax being extended by five preceding months. Apart from this change, there is nothing else that is different

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

Of the Department's clouded interpretation of the Centum

Bench: ANAND BYRAREDDY

disallowed. The provision is therefore very clearly a substantive one in nature. That the legislature by way of amendment of Section 10(3) has retained the tenor of the earlier provision, with only a rider that a claim for input tax being extended by five preceding months. Apart from this change, there is nothing else that is different

KAVERI PLASTO CONTAINERS PVT LTD vs. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA

Of the Department's clouded interpretation of the Centum

Bench: ANAND BYRAREDDY

disallowed. The provision is therefore very clearly a substantive one in nature. That the legislature by way of amendment of Section 10(3) has retained the tenor of the earlier provision, with only a rider that a claim for input tax being extended by five preceding months. Apart from this change, there is nothing else that is different

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

Of the Department's clouded interpretation of the Centum

Bench: ANAND BYRAREDDY

disallowed. The provision is therefore very clearly a substantive one in nature. That the legislature by way of amendment of Section 10(3) has retained the tenor of the earlier provision, with only a rider that a claim for input tax being extended by five preceding months. Apart from this change, there is nothing else that is different

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

Of the Department's clouded interpretation of the Centum

Bench: ANAND BYRAREDDY

disallowed. The provision is therefore very clearly a substantive one in nature. That the legislature by way of amendment of Section 10(3) has retained the tenor of the earlier provision, with only a rider that a claim for input tax being extended by five preceding months. Apart from this change, there is nothing else that is different

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 PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER vs. M/S OBULAPURAM MINING

Bench: K.SOMASHEKAR,UMESH M ADIGA

disallowance under Explanation-1 to Section 37(1) of the 10 Income Tax Act because the expenses incurred for mining

THE PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER vs. M/S OBULAPURAM MINING

Bench: K.SOMASHEKAR,UMESH M ADIGA

10, the learned AR of the assessee submitted that three issues are involved in this ground i.e. 1) Disallowance of Transportation charges, 2) Disallowance of Expenses under Explanation to section 37

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) of freight charges 37,28,12,027 42,92,10,516 20. It is relevant

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) of freight charges 37,28,12,027 42,92,10,516 20. It is relevant

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

37,000/- and made disallowance under Section 14-A of the Act in a sum of Rs.36,52,797/- on 27.02.2013. The Assessing Officer had also passed an assessment order under Section 143(3) of the Act for the assessment year 2011-12 and disallowed the Privilege fee of Rs.695,14,70,000/- made disallowance under Section

M/S CANARA BANK BSCA SECTION vs. THE ASST COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE-11(2)

Bench: N.KUMAR,RATHNAKALA

disallowance under section 14A of the Act to 2% of - 7 - the gross receipts on account of dividends and interest which are exempt following earlier order of his own in the assessee’s case for the assessment year 1998-99. The said order was challenged before the Tribunal. The Tribunal confirmed the said order, in view of the fact that

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

The appeals stand disposed of, accordingly

Bench: N.KUMAR,B.SREENIVASE GOWDA

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 in the contracting country. Though this provision 90(1)(a)(ii) came on the statute book from

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

The appeals stand disposed of, accordingly

Bench: N.KUMAR,B.SREENIVASE GOWDA

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 in the contracting country. Though this provision 90(1)(a)(ii) came on the statute book from

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 of its claim under Section 14A of the Act was made. The revenue has filed an appeal being aggrieved by the order of the tribunal granting the alternate relief to the assessee for Research and Development expenses under Section 35(1)(iv) of the Act. 8 6. Learned counsel for the assessee submitted that the authorities under

HINDUSTAN AERONAUTICS LIMITED vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER

In the result, the order of the

Bench: ALOK ARADHE,H.T. NARENDRA PRASAD

disallowance of its claim under Section 14A of the Act was made. The revenue has filed an appeal being aggrieved by the order of the tribunal granting the alternate relief to the assessee for Research and Development expenses under Section 35(1)(iv) of the Act. 8 6. Learned counsel for the assessee submitted that the authorities under