KAVERI PLASTO CONTAINERS PVT LTD vs. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA

Of the Department's clouded interpretation of the Centum

Bench: ANAND BYRAREDDY

46 years. 13 …PETITIONER (By Shri K.P.Kumar, Senior Advocate for Shri T. Suryanarayana, Advocate) AND: 1. The State of Karnataka, Represented herein by the Principal Secretary – Finance Department, Government of Karnataka, Vidhana Soudha, Bangalore 560 001. 2. The Deputy Commissioner of Commercial Taxes, (Audit – 4.1), Vanijya Therige Karyalaya -2, Koramangala, Bangalore 560 047. …RESPONDENTS (By Shri A.S.Ponnanna, Additional Advocate General

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

Of the Department's clouded interpretation of the Centum

Bench: ANAND BYRAREDDY

46 years. 13 …PETITIONER (By Shri K.P.Kumar, Senior Advocate for Shri T. Suryanarayana, Advocate) AND: 1. The State of Karnataka, Represented herein by the Principal Secretary – Finance Department, Government of Karnataka, Vidhana Soudha, Bangalore 560 001. 2. The Deputy Commissioner of Commercial Taxes, (Audit – 4.1), Vanijya Therige Karyalaya -2, Koramangala, Bangalore 560 047. …RESPONDENTS (By Shri A.S.Ponnanna, Additional Advocate General

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

Of the Department's clouded interpretation of the Centum

Bench: ANAND BYRAREDDY

46 years. 13 …PETITIONER (By Shri K.P.Kumar, Senior Advocate for Shri T. Suryanarayana, Advocate) AND: 1. The State of Karnataka, Represented herein by the Principal Secretary – Finance Department, Government of Karnataka, Vidhana Soudha, Bangalore 560 001. 2. The Deputy Commissioner of Commercial Taxes, (Audit – 4.1), Vanijya Therige Karyalaya -2, Koramangala, Bangalore 560 047. …RESPONDENTS (By Shri A.S.Ponnanna, Additional Advocate General

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

Of the Department's clouded interpretation of the Centum

Bench: ANAND BYRAREDDY

46 years. 13 …PETITIONER (By Shri K.P.Kumar, Senior Advocate for Shri T. Suryanarayana, Advocate) AND: 1. The State of Karnataka, Represented herein by the Principal Secretary – Finance Department, Government of Karnataka, Vidhana Soudha, Bangalore 560 001. 2. The Deputy Commissioner of Commercial Taxes, (Audit – 4.1), Vanijya Therige Karyalaya -2, Koramangala, Bangalore 560 047. …RESPONDENTS (By Shri A.S.Ponnanna, Additional Advocate General

DEPA INDIA PRIVATE LTD. vs. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA

Of the Department's clouded interpretation of the Centum

Bench: ANAND BYRAREDDY

46 years. 13 …PETITIONER (By Shri K.P.Kumar, Senior Advocate for Shri T. Suryanarayana, Advocate) AND: 1. The State of Karnataka, Represented herein by the Principal Secretary – Finance Department, Government of Karnataka, Vidhana Soudha, Bangalore 560 001. 2. The Deputy Commissioner of Commercial Taxes, (Audit – 4.1), Vanijya Therige Karyalaya -2, Koramangala, Bangalore 560 047. …RESPONDENTS (By Shri A.S.Ponnanna, Additional Advocate General

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

Of the Department's clouded interpretation of the Centum

Bench: ANAND BYRAREDDY

46 years. 13 …PETITIONER (By Shri K.P.Kumar, Senior Advocate for Shri T. Suryanarayana, Advocate) AND: 1. The State of Karnataka, Represented herein by the Principal Secretary – Finance Department, Government of Karnataka, Vidhana Soudha, Bangalore 560 001. 2. The Deputy Commissioner of Commercial Taxes, (Audit – 4.1), Vanijya Therige Karyalaya -2, Koramangala, Bangalore 560 047. …RESPONDENTS (By Shri A.S.Ponnanna, Additional Advocate General

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

Of the Department's clouded interpretation of the Centum

Bench: ANAND BYRAREDDY

46 years. 13 …PETITIONER (By Shri K.P.Kumar, Senior Advocate for Shri T. Suryanarayana, Advocate) AND: 1. The State of Karnataka, Represented herein by the Principal Secretary – Finance Department, Government of Karnataka, Vidhana Soudha, Bangalore 560 001. 2. The Deputy Commissioner of Commercial Taxes, (Audit – 4.1), Vanijya Therige Karyalaya -2, Koramangala, Bangalore 560 047. …RESPONDENTS (By Shri A.S.Ponnanna, Additional Advocate General

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

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

46 YEARS ... PETITIONER [BY SMT.VANI H., ADV.] AND: 1 . THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF COMMERCIAL TAXES-ENFORCEMENT-02 WEST ZONE, VANIJYA THERIGE BHAVANA, MAIDAN ROAD, MANGALURU-575 001 - 3 - 2 . STATE OF KARNATAKA DEPARTMENT OF FINANCE, BY ITS SECRETARY, VIDHANA SOUDHA, BENGALURU-560 001 …RESPONDENTS [BY SRI T.K.VEDAMURTHY, AGA.] THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 & 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION

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

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 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

PR.COMMISSIONER OF INCOMETAX-2 vs. M/S.EYGBS (INDIA) PVT LTD

Bench: CHIEF JUSTICE,C M JOSHI

disallowance of 10% of dividend income under Section 14A of the Act. 5. The Assessee is engaged in the business of providing back office support and data processing services to its customers. The Assessee had filed its return of income [ROI] for the AY 2015-16 and AY 2016-17 on 30.11.2015 and 14.10.2016 respectively. The Assessee had declared

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

The appeals are dismissed

Bench: S.SUJATHA,N.K.PATIL

disallowance of depreciation, the assessee preferred appeals which were allowed in favour of the assessee. Revenue challenged the said orders of the CIT(Appeals) before the Tribunal unsuccessfully. The orders passed by the Tribunal are challenged in these appeals. 8. ITA No.431/2013, ITA Nos.56/2013 and 108/2014 are filed by the revenue challenging the orders passed by the Tribunal whereby

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

The appeals are dismissed

Bench: S.SUJATHA,N.K.PATIL

disallowance of depreciation, the assessee preferred appeals which were allowed in favour of the assessee. Revenue challenged the said orders of the CIT(Appeals) before the Tribunal unsuccessfully. The orders passed by the Tribunal are challenged in these appeals. 8. ITA No.431/2013, ITA Nos.56/2013 and 108/2014 are filed by the revenue challenging the orders passed by the Tribunal whereby

THE DIRECTOR OF INCOME TAX vs. M/S GOKULA EDUCATION FOUNDATION

The appeals are dismissed

Bench: S.SUJATHA,N.K.PATIL

disallowance of depreciation, the assessee preferred appeals which were allowed in favour of the assessee. Revenue challenged the said orders of the CIT(Appeals) before the Tribunal unsuccessfully. The orders passed by the Tribunal are challenged in these appeals. 8. ITA No.431/2013, ITA Nos.56/2013 and 108/2014 are filed by the revenue challenging the orders passed by the Tribunal whereby

THE DIRECTOR OF INCOME TAX vs. INTERNATIONAL INSTITUTE OF INFORMATION TECHNOLOGY

The appeals are dismissed

Bench: S.SUJATHA,N.K.PATIL

disallowance of depreciation, the assessee preferred appeals which were allowed in favour of the assessee. Revenue challenged the said orders of the CIT(Appeals) before the Tribunal unsuccessfully. The orders passed by the Tribunal are challenged in these appeals. 8. ITA No.431/2013, ITA Nos.56/2013 and 108/2014 are filed by the revenue challenging the orders passed by the Tribunal whereby

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

The appeals are dismissed

Bench: S.SUJATHA,N.K.PATIL

disallowance of depreciation, the assessee preferred appeals which were allowed in favour of the assessee. Revenue challenged the said orders of the CIT(Appeals) before the Tribunal unsuccessfully. The orders passed by the Tribunal are challenged in these appeals. 8. ITA No.431/2013, ITA Nos.56/2013 and 108/2014 are filed by the revenue challenging the orders passed by the Tribunal whereby

COMMISSIONER OF INCOME vs. SRI ADICHUNCHANAGIRI

The appeals are dismissed

Bench: S.SUJATHA,N.K.PATIL

disallowance of depreciation, the assessee preferred appeals which were allowed in favour of the assessee. Revenue challenged the said orders of the CIT(Appeals) before the Tribunal unsuccessfully. The orders passed by the Tribunal are challenged in these appeals. 8. ITA No.431/2013, ITA Nos.56/2013 and 108/2014 are filed by the revenue challenging the orders passed by the Tribunal whereby