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 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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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. After analyzing plethora of judgments, the Hon’ble Apex Court in WHIRLPOOL CORPORATION vs REGISTRAR OF TRADE MARKS, MUMBAI AND OTHERS reported in (1998)8 SCC 1 has held exercise of jurisdiction by the High Court to entertain a writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, 17 in spite of availability of alternative statutory remedies

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

The appeals are dismissed

Bench: SATISH CHANDRA SHARMA,SURAJ GOVINDARAJ

3. “Whether on the facts of the case, the Tribunal’s order can be said as perverse in nature as Tribunal failed to appreciate that mentioning of wrong provision of law does not invalidate disallowance if the order passed in sum and substance meets the legal requirements then it is said to be a valid order and appellate authorities

THE PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER vs. M/S OBULAPURAM MINING

Bench: K.SOMASHEKAR,UMESH M ADIGA

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 of expenses claimed under section

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 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 SAFINA HOTELS PRIVATE LIMITED vs. THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX

Appeal is allowed

Bench: S.SUJATHA,N.K.PATIL

3) read with Section 158(b)(c) of the Act. The appellant had claimed Rs.28,40,409/- as loss on ‘sale of investment’ under the financial charges as revenue 4 expenditure. The Assessing Officer held the above income to be in the nature of capital expenditure and disallowed the claim made by the assessee. Accordingly, assessments were concluded. The Assessing

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

M/S BANGALORE ELECTRICITY SUPPLY COMPANY LTD vs. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX

In the result, the order passed by the tribunal

Bench: ALOK ARADHE,R. NATARAJ

disallowed the deduction claimed under Section 80IA(4)(iv)(c) of the Act and held that computation as per normal provisions of the Act is adopted as tax liability. 3. The assessee thereupon filed an appeal before the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), who by an order dated 10.02.2009 dismissed the appeal preferred by the assessee. The assessee thereupon approached