ACE DESIGNERS LIMITED 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

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 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

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 DIRECTOR OF INCOME TAX vs. INDIA HERITAGE FOUNDATION

The appeal is disposed of

Bench: ALOK ARADHE,H.T. NARENDRA PRASAD

disallow the deduction as claimed by the assessee under Section 80IB(10) of the Act and to carry out the assessment 5 afresh in accordance with law after affording an opportunity of hearing to the assessee. 3. Being aggrieved, the assessee filed an appeal before the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Tribunal’, for short). The Tribunal

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

The appeal stands dismissed

Bench: S.SUJATHA,J.M.KHAZI

10 other than the provisions contained in clause (38) thereof or Section 11 or Section 12 apply has to be considered for the purpose of Section 115JB(2) while considering the book profits. The order of the Tribunal is perverse in not following the judgment rendered by the said Tribunal in the case of DCIT vs. Shobha Developers reported

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

M/S KARNATAKA STATE INDUSTRIAL AND INFRASTRUCTURE DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION LTD vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX

The appeal is disposed of

Bench: ALOK ARADHE,M.I.ARUN

disallowance of estimated expenses under Section 14A of the Act and indexation benefit of long term capital gains under Section 10(38

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 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

disallowance is untenable in law and - 28 - ITA No.53 of 2024 failure to do so has resulted in short computation of income of Rs. 10,90,23,000/- (@30% of Rs.36,34,10,000/-) with a consequent tax effect of Rs.5,74,38,22/-. This has resulted in Loss to revenue. Considering these facts, the assessment order is erroneous

PR. COMMISSIONER OF vs. M/S TALLY SOLUTIONS PVT LTD.,

In the result, the appeals fail and are hereby

Bench: ALOK ARADHE,H.T. NARENDRA PRASAD

38 of the Act and therefore, in case, any deduction is claimed under Section 32 of the Act while computing the income under the head of 'profits and gains of business and profession' can be disallowed if the assessee has not deducted the tax at source. 7. It is also submitted that the intention of the legislature in providing disallowance

PR COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-7 vs. M/S TALLY SOLUTIONS PVT LTD

In the result, the appeals fail and are hereby

Bench: ALOK ARADHE,H.T. NARENDRA PRASAD

38 of the Act and therefore, in case, any deduction is claimed under Section 32 of the Act while computing the income under the head of 'profits and gains of business and profession' can be disallowed if the assessee has not deducted the tax at source. 7. It is also submitted that the intention of the legislature in providing disallowance

PR COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-7 vs. M/S TALLY SOLUTIONS PVT LTD

In the result, the appeals fail and are hereby

Bench: ALOK ARADHE,H.T. NARENDRA PRASAD

38 of the Act and therefore, in case, any deduction is claimed under Section 32 of the Act while computing the income under the head of 'profits and gains of business and profession' can be disallowed if the assessee has not deducted the tax at source. 7. It is also submitted that the intention of the legislature in providing disallowance