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

Of the Department's clouded interpretation of the Centum

Bench: ANAND BYRAREDDY

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

ACE DESIGNERS LIMITED vs. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA

Of the Department's clouded interpretation of the Centum

Bench: ANAND BYRAREDDY

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

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

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

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

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

KAVERI PLASTO CONTAINERS PVT LTD vs. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA

Of the Department's clouded interpretation of the Centum

Bench: ANAND BYRAREDDY

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

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

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

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

The appeals stand dismissed

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

13(1)(c) mandates that, in the case of a Trust, if any part of its income or property is applied, directly or indirectly, for the benefit of the persons referred to in sub- section (3), such part of the income, as contemplated under the relevant sub-clauses, would not be eligible for exemption and is liable to be disallowed

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

disallow such claim made by the assessee though duly certified by the prescribed authority by taking recourse to the later portion of sub-clause (ii) of sub-section (4) of Section 43 of the Act. He would summarise his 9 submissions by contending the definition of ‘scientific research’ found in Section 43(4) has been imported to Section

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

3) read with Section 144C(13) of the Act was passed on 18.12.2018. Aggrieved by the DAO, the respondent-assessee filed objections to the same. The objections were disposed of, pursuant to which, the Assessing Officer passed the final assessment order dated 25.10.2019. Subsequently, the appellant-PCIT initiated proceedings under Section 263 of the Act on 19.03.2022 seeking to revise

THE PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER vs. M/S OBULAPURAM MINING

Bench: K.SOMASHEKAR,UMESH M ADIGA

3 with Section 144C(13) of the Income Tax Act on 31.12.2013, determining total income at Rs.10,86,34,35,052/- by making various additions, which reads as under: Additional / Issues Rs. Transfer pricing adjustments 112,20,92,081/- Claim of bogus transportation expenses of iron ore 40% attributable towards illegal mining. 86,43,47,335/- Disallowance

M/S NAM ESTATES PVT. LTD. vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER

In the result, we do not find any merit in this

Bench: ALOK ARADHE,H.T. NARENDRA PRASAD

disallowance under sub- 9 Section (3) of Section 40A shall be made no payment shall be deemed to be the profits and gains of business or profession under sub-Section (3A) of Section 40A where a payment or aggregate of payments made to a person in a day, otherwise than by an account payee cheque drawn on a bank

M/S.M K AGROTECH PRIVATE LTD vs. THE ADDL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX

The appeal is allowed

Bench: The Hon'Ble Mr. Justice Ravi Malimath

13. For the aforesaid reasons, the substantial question of law is answered by holding that the Tribunal was not justified in confirming the disallowance of Rs.27,31,483/- under Section 40A(3

M/S J K INDUSTRIES LTD vs. THE JOINT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX

In the result, all questions are answered against the

Bench: D.V.SHYLENDRA KUMAR,B.SREENIVASE GOWDA

3) For the purpose of sub-section (1) - xxx Provided that the profits computed under clause (a) or clause (b) or clause (c) of this sub- section shall be further increased by the amount which bears to ninety per cent of any sum referred to in clause (iiia) (not being profits on sale of a licence acquired from any other

M/S T T K PRESTIGE LTD vs. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX

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

disallowance claimed as ‘revenue expenditure’. It was pointed out that for the Assessment Year 2007-08, a query was made by the AO and in terms of the reply filed by the Assessee dated 11.08.2009, it was brought to the notice of the AO that the logo commission refers to the amount paid in consideration of a Licence

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

3,84,26,370 Assessment Year - 2009-10 Particulars AY 2009-10 Disallowance of freight charges under section 40(a)(i) of the IT Act 80,19,59,658 Disallowance of Depreciation 13