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

Of the Department's clouded interpretation of the Centum

Bench: ANAND BYRAREDDY

5. On the other hand, the learned Additional Advocate General, Shri A.S. Ponnanna, appearing for the State would contend that Section 2(33) KVAT authorizes the State legislature to prescribe the tax period for the purpose of submission of filing monthly returns under Section 35 of the KVAT Act, 2003. Rule 37 of the KVAT Rules, 2005 has prescribed

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

Of the Department's clouded interpretation of the Centum

Bench: ANAND BYRAREDDY

5. On the other hand, the learned Additional Advocate General, Shri A.S. Ponnanna, appearing for the State would contend that Section 2(33) KVAT authorizes the State legislature to prescribe the tax period for the purpose of submission of filing monthly returns under Section 35 of the KVAT Act, 2003. Rule 37 of the KVAT Rules, 2005 has prescribed

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

Of the Department's clouded interpretation of the Centum

Bench: ANAND BYRAREDDY

5. On the other hand, the learned Additional Advocate General, Shri A.S. Ponnanna, appearing for the State would contend that Section 2(33) KVAT authorizes the State legislature to prescribe the tax period for the purpose of submission of filing monthly returns under Section 35 of the KVAT Act, 2003. Rule 37 of the KVAT Rules, 2005 has prescribed

ACE DESIGNERS LIMITED vs. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA

Of the Department's clouded interpretation of the Centum

Bench: ANAND BYRAREDDY

5. On the other hand, the learned Additional Advocate General, Shri A.S. Ponnanna, appearing for the State would contend that Section 2(33) KVAT authorizes the State legislature to prescribe the tax period for the purpose of submission of filing monthly returns under Section 35 of the KVAT Act, 2003. Rule 37 of the KVAT Rules, 2005 has prescribed

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

Of the Department's clouded interpretation of the Centum

Bench: ANAND BYRAREDDY

5. On the other hand, the learned Additional Advocate General, Shri A.S. Ponnanna, appearing for the State would contend that Section 2(33) KVAT authorizes the State legislature to prescribe the tax period for the purpose of submission of filing monthly returns under Section 35 of the KVAT Act, 2003. Rule 37 of the KVAT Rules, 2005 has prescribed

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

Of the Department's clouded interpretation of the Centum

Bench: ANAND BYRAREDDY

5. On the other hand, the learned Additional Advocate General, Shri A.S. Ponnanna, appearing for the State would contend that Section 2(33) KVAT authorizes the State legislature to prescribe the tax period for the purpose of submission of filing monthly returns under Section 35 of the KVAT Act, 2003. Rule 37 of the KVAT Rules, 2005 has prescribed

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

Of the Department's clouded interpretation of the Centum

Bench: ANAND BYRAREDDY

5. On the other hand, the learned Additional Advocate General, Shri A.S. Ponnanna, appearing for the State would contend that Section 2(33) KVAT authorizes the State legislature to prescribe the tax period for the purpose of submission of filing monthly returns under Section 35 of the KVAT Act, 2003. Rule 37 of the KVAT Rules, 2005 has prescribed

KAVERI PLASTO CONTAINERS PVT LTD vs. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA

Of the Department's clouded interpretation of the Centum

Bench: ANAND BYRAREDDY

5. On the other hand, the learned Additional Advocate General, Shri A.S. Ponnanna, appearing for the State would contend that Section 2(33) KVAT authorizes the State legislature to prescribe the tax period for the purpose of submission of filing monthly returns under Section 35 of the KVAT Act, 2003. Rule 37 of the KVAT Rules, 2005 has prescribed

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

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

5. Non-compliance to the instructions issued I this circular will be viewed seriously and disciplinary action will be initiated against such non-compliant officers. 6. If any contrary view other than the interpretation made in this judgment and the instructions of this circular is taken by any of the authorities in the department while examining the claim of input

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

The appeals stand disposed of, accordingly

Bench: N.KUMAR,B.SREENIVASE GOWDA

10 - Central Revenue Building Queens Road, Bangalore 560001. …RESPONDENT (By Sri E.R.Indrakumar, Senior Counsel for Sri K.V.Aravind, Adv.) . . . . This I.T.A. is filed under Section 260-A of I.T.Act, 1961 arising out of order dated 31.10.2008 passed in ITA No.624/BANG/2007, for the assessment year 2003-2004, praying to I) Formulate the substantial questions of law stated therein, II) Allow the appeal

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

The appeals stand disposed of, accordingly

Bench: N.KUMAR,B.SREENIVASE GOWDA

10 - Central Revenue Building Queens Road, Bangalore 560001. …RESPONDENT (By Sri E.R.Indrakumar, Senior Counsel for Sri K.V.Aravind, Adv.) . . . . This I.T.A. is filed under Section 260-A of I.T.Act, 1961 arising out of order dated 31.10.2008 passed in ITA No.624/BANG/2007, for the assessment year 2003-2004, praying to I) Formulate the substantial questions of law stated therein, II) Allow the appeal

THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX vs. KSRTC EMPLOYEES DEATH-CUM-RETIREMENT BENEFIT

Appeals stand dismissed

Bench: N.KUMAR,RATHNAKALA

5) of the Act in order to avail the benefit under Section 10(23AAA) of the Act. Therefore, he disallowed

MADHU SOUHARDA PATHINA SAHAKARI NIYAMITHA vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER

The appeal stands dismissed

Bench: S.G.PANDIT,K. V. ARAVIND

disallowance of deduction under Section 80P of the Act, on the ground of non-filing of return of income, can be made only by invoking Section 80AC of the Act. However, Section 80AC has been made applicable to Section 80P of the Act by the Finance Act, 2018 with effect from 01.04.2018, i.e., from the Assessment Year 2018–19. Since

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

disallowed the claim in respect of both the assessment years. The assessee thereupon filed an appeal before the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals). The Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) by an order dated 20.09.2013 inter alia held that the assessee is entitled to benefit of deduction under Section 80IB(10) of the Act only to the 5

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

THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME - TAX vs. M/S. MAHAVEER MARVEL

In the result, the appeal fails and the same is

Bench: ALOK ARADHE,H.T. NARENDRA PRASAD

Section 80IB(10) of the Act was disallowed and the profits earned from the project in question i.e., Rs.3,05,61,970/- were treated as income and subjected to levy of tax and interest. 3. Being aggrieved, the assessee filed an appeal before the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals). The Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) by an order 5

THE PR COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX vs. M/S EXIDE LIFE INSURANCE CO LTD

In the result, both the appeals stand dismissed

Bench: S.SUJATHA,RAVI V HOSMANI

5 2. Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal is right in law setting aside disallowance made in respect of claim of losses from pension fund not allowed to be carried forward at Rs.93,39,11,564/- by holding that losses incurred from pension fund is exempt under section 10

THE PR COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX vs. M/S EXIDE LIFE INSURANCE COMPANY LTD

In the result, both the appeals stand dismissed

Bench: S.SUJATHA,RAVI V HOSMANI

5 2. Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal is right in law setting aside disallowance made in respect of claim of losses from pension fund not allowed to be carried forward at Rs.93,39,11,564/- by holding that losses incurred from pension fund is exempt under section 10