THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX vs. TEXAS INSTRUMENTS INDIA PVT LTD

The appeals are dismissed

Bench: SATISH CHANDRA SHARMA,SURAJ GOVINDARAJ

disallowed under Section 43- B which, as stated above, was inserted with effect from 1st April, 1984. It is also relevant to note that the first proviso which came into force with effect from 1st April, 1988 was not on the statute book when the assessments were made in the case of Allied Motors (P) Limited (supra). However, the Assessee

M/S FIDELITY BUSINESS SERVICES INDIA PVT LTD vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX

Bench: S.SUJATHA,VINEET KOTHARI

d) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as the ‘Act’ for short) in terms of Section 115-O of the Act on the pay-out by it for buy-back of its own shares from its foreign Holding Company, M/s. FIS Holding Muritian Ltd. incorporated in Mauritius. 7. The Appellant Assessee Company bought back its own shares

THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (EXEMPTION) vs. CMR JNANADHARA TRUST

The appeals stand dismissed

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

2) the following, namely:- (a) the author of the trust or the founder of the institution62, (b) any person who has made a substantial contribution to the trust or institution, [that is to say, any person whose total contribution up to the end of the relevant previous year exceeds [fifty] thousand rupees

M/S J K CEMENT WORKS vs. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA

Bench: H.B.PRABHAKARA SASTRY,VINEET KOTHARI

d) Notwithstanding anything contained in this Act, where any dealer has sold goods at a price lesser than the price of such goods purchased by him, the amount of input tax credit shall be restricted to the amount of output tax of such goods” “ 12. Deduction of input tax in respect of Capital goods.— (1) Deduction of input tax shall

THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX vs. PRAVEEN V DODDANAVAR

Bench: SREENIVAS HARISH KUMAR,VINEET KOTHARI

d) Notwithstanding anything contained in this Act, where any dealer has sold goods at a price lesser than the price of such goods purchased by him, the amount of input tax credit shall be restricted to the amount of output tax of such goods” “ 12. Deduction of input tax in respect of Capital goods.— (1) Deduction of input tax shall

THE BAILHONGAL URBAN COOPERATIVE BANK LTD vs. THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX

Bench: S.ABDUL NAZEER,P.S.DINESH KUMAR

d) Notwithstanding anything contained in this Act, where any dealer has sold goods at a price lesser than the price of such goods purchased by him, the amount of input tax credit shall be restricted to the amount of output tax of such goods” “ 12. Deduction of input tax in respect of Capital goods.— (1) Deduction of input tax shall

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

d) for costs of this Petition. “ 2. Both the petitions are by the same petitioner – assessee seeking identical reliefs. While W.P.No.10551/2022 is in relation to the assessment year 2008-09, W.P.No.10523/2022 is in relation to the assessment year 2009-10. Since common issues arise for consideration in both the matters, they are taken up together and disposed

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

d) for costs of this Petition. “ 2. Both the petitions are by the same petitioner – assessee seeking identical reliefs. While W.P.No.10551/2022 is in relation to the assessment year 2008-09, W.P.No.10523/2022 is in relation to the assessment year 2009-10. Since common issues arise for consideration in both the matters, they are taken up together and disposed

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

The appeal stands dismissed

Bench: S.SUJATHA,J.M.KHAZI

d) amend any intimation under sub-section (1) of section 206CB; - 8 - (1A) Where any matter has been considered and decided in any proceeding by way of appeal or revision relating to an order referred to in sub- section (1), the authority passing such order may, notwithstanding anything contained in any law for the time being in force, amend

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

The appeals stand disposed of, accordingly

Bench: N.KUMAR,B.SREENIVASE GOWDA

2) was issued on 14.02.2005. A questionnaire was issued on 27.04.2006 calling for certain details and the compliance was fixed on various dates beginning from 19.05.2006. The assessee- company filed written replies along with enclosures. Assessment u/s 143(3) was completed and orders dated 29.12.2006 for assessment year 2004-05 was passed after - 23 - making certain allowances/ disallowances, re-computation

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

The appeals stand disposed of, accordingly

Bench: N.KUMAR,B.SREENIVASE GOWDA

2) was issued on 14.02.2005. A questionnaire was issued on 27.04.2006 calling for certain details and the compliance was fixed on various dates beginning from 19.05.2006. The assessee- company filed written replies along with enclosures. Assessment u/s 143(3) was completed and orders dated 29.12.2006 for assessment year 2004-05 was passed after - 23 - making certain allowances/ disallowances, re-computation

SRI N GOVINDARAJU vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER

Appeal stands disposed of

Bench: S.SUJATHA,VINEET SARAN

d). Besides the aforesaid issue, on facts/merits also certain questions have been raised which would require consideration of this Court. Brief facts of this case are that the appellant, who is assessed as an individual, has income from house property, transport business, capital gains and other sources. For the assessment year 2004-05, he 3 filed his Income Tax return

COFFEEDAY GLOBAL LTD. vs. ADDITIONAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX

In the result, the orders dated 21

Bench: ALOK ARADHE,ASHOK S.KINAGI

D) TO THE EXTENT QUESTIONED & ETC. THESE I.T.As. COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THIS DAY, ALOK ARADHE J., DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: COMMON JUDGMENT These appeals under Section 260A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as the Act for short) have been filed by the assessee as well as the revenue. I.T.A.No.313/2018 and I.T.A.No.315/2018 have been filed

PR. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX vs. M/S AMALGAMATED BEAN COFFEE TRADING CO LTD

In the result, the orders dated 21

Bench: ALOK ARADHE,ASHOK S.KINAGI

D) TO THE EXTENT QUESTIONED & ETC. THESE I.T.As. COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THIS DAY, ALOK ARADHE J., DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: COMMON JUDGMENT These appeals under Section 260A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as the Act for short) have been filed by the assessee as well as the revenue. I.T.A.No.313/2018 and I.T.A.No.315/2018 have been filed

COFFEEDAY GLOBAL LTD. vs. ADDITIONAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX

In the result, the orders dated 21

Bench: ALOK ARADHE,ASHOK S.KINAGI

D) TO THE EXTENT QUESTIONED & ETC. THESE I.T.As. COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THIS DAY, ALOK ARADHE J., DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: COMMON JUDGMENT These appeals under Section 260A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as the Act for short) have been filed by the assessee as well as the revenue. I.T.A.No.313/2018 and I.T.A.No.315/2018 have been filed

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

In the result, I proceed to pass the following:

Bench: The Hon’Ble Mr.Justice Aravind Kumar

13,72,23,231/- came to be disallowed. 24. Thus, an amount of ` 48,41,82,071/- out of deduction of ` 89,35,48,193/- claimed under Section 38 35(2AB) was disallowed and added to the income of the assessee. It has been held by the second respondent that the mandate of the prescribed authority is limited to certifying

M/S NANDI STEELS LIMITED vs. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX

In the result, the findings

Bench: ALOK ARADHE,R. NATARAJ

disallowed the claim of set off of brought forward loss. It is also pointed out that proviso to Section 72(i) was omitted by Finance act, 1999 with effect from 01.04.2000 and for the impugned assessment year 2003-04, the assessee was not required to carry on the business for the purpose of set off of brought forward business loss

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

Bench: CHIEF JUSTICE,C M JOSHI

13 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:36360-DB ITA No. 107 of 2025 C/W ITA No. 106 of 2025 into, a modified return in accordance with and limited to the agreement. (2) Save as otherwise provided in this section, all other provisions of this Act shall apply accordingly as if the modified return is a return furnished under Section