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

Of the Department's clouded interpretation of the Centum

Bench: ANAND BYRAREDDY

14,17,18 and 19, the net tax payable by a registered dealer in respect of each tax period shall be the amount of output tax payable by him in that period less the input tax deductible by him as may be prescribed in that period and relatable to goods purchased during the period 22 immediately preceding five tax periods

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

Of the Department's clouded interpretation of the Centum

Bench: ANAND BYRAREDDY

14,17,18 and 19, the net tax payable by a registered dealer in respect of each tax period shall be the amount of output tax payable by him in that period less the input tax deductible by him as may be prescribed in that period and relatable to goods purchased during the period 22 immediately preceding five tax periods

ACE DESIGNERS LIMITED vs. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA

Of the Department's clouded interpretation of the Centum

Bench: ANAND BYRAREDDY

14,17,18 and 19, the net tax payable by a registered dealer in respect of each tax period shall be the amount of output tax payable by him in that period less the input tax deductible by him as may be prescribed in that period and relatable to goods purchased during the period 22 immediately preceding five tax periods

DEPA INDIA PRIVATE LTD. vs. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA

Of the Department's clouded interpretation of the Centum

Bench: ANAND BYRAREDDY

14,17,18 and 19, the net tax payable by a registered dealer in respect of each tax period shall be the amount of output tax payable by him in that period less the input tax deductible by him as may be prescribed in that period and relatable to goods purchased during the period 22 immediately preceding five tax periods

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

Of the Department's clouded interpretation of the Centum

Bench: ANAND BYRAREDDY

14,17,18 and 19, the net tax payable by a registered dealer in respect of each tax period shall be the amount of output tax payable by him in that period less the input tax deductible by him as may be prescribed in that period and relatable to goods purchased during the period 22 immediately preceding five tax periods

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

Of the Department's clouded interpretation of the Centum

Bench: ANAND BYRAREDDY

14,17,18 and 19, the net tax payable by a registered dealer in respect of each tax period shall be the amount of output tax payable by him in that period less the input tax deductible by him as may be prescribed in that period and relatable to goods purchased during the period 22 immediately preceding five tax periods

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

Of the Department's clouded interpretation of the Centum

Bench: ANAND BYRAREDDY

14,17,18 and 19, the net tax payable by a registered dealer in respect of each tax period shall be the amount of output tax payable by him in that period less the input tax deductible by him as may be prescribed in that period and relatable to goods purchased during the period 22 immediately preceding five tax periods

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

Of the Department's clouded interpretation of the Centum

Bench: ANAND BYRAREDDY

14,17,18 and 19, the net tax payable by a registered dealer in respect of each tax period shall be the amount of output tax payable by him in that period less the input tax deductible by him as may be prescribed in that period and relatable to goods purchased during the period 22 immediately preceding five tax periods

KAVERI PLASTO CONTAINERS PVT LTD vs. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA

Of the Department's clouded interpretation of the Centum

Bench: ANAND BYRAREDDY

14,17,18 and 19, the net tax payable by a registered dealer in respect of each tax period shall be the amount of output tax payable by him in that period less the input tax deductible by him as may be prescribed in that period and relatable to goods purchased during the period 22 immediately preceding five tax periods

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

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

14,70,000/- made disallowance under Section 14A of the Act in a sum of Rs.19,20,039/-, disallowance of provision for ex-gratia Rs.37,52,700/- and disallowance of expenditure on increase in share capital Rs.4,85,000/-, by order dated 26.02.2014. Similarly, an assessment order was passed under Section 143(3

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

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

The appeal is allowed

Bench: The Hon'Ble Mr. Justice Ravi Malimath

14 concerned drafts, the finding of the Tribunal on this issue with regard to unsatisfactory answer given by the assessee falls into insignificance. 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 T T K PRESTIGE LTD vs. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX

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

14. As regards interpretation of Section 147 of the Act, the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of RAJESH JHAVERI’s case supra, has held thus: “16. Section 147 authorises and permits the Assessing Officer to assess or reassess income chargeable to tax if he has reason to believe that income for any assessment year has escaped assessment

SHRI. SHANKARLAL GILADA vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER,

Bench: G.NARENDAR,M.NAGAPRASANNA

Section 14A of the Act read with Rule 8D of Income Tax Rules, 1962, (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Rules’ for short) which resulted in assessing the income of the appellant at Rs.11,41,690/- as against the return of income filed at Rs.10,35,060/-. 5. The appellant, aggrieved by the aforementioned assessment of the Assessing Officer, filed

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

14-15. The AO has erroneously not made the disallowance in the asstt. order. Not making this disallowance is contrary to law. 5. This is not a case where the Assessing Officer has taken one of the legally plausible views. Not making the above disallowance is legally untenable. Moreover, the Hon'ble Supreme Court (Constitution Bench) have recently

THE PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER vs. M/S OBULAPURAM MINING

Bench: K.SOMASHEKAR,UMESH M ADIGA

Disallowance under Section 37(1), the Tribunal has grossly erred in deleting the addition made by the Assessing Authority under section 37(1) of the Act towards the expenses claimed on its illegal mining activity. The Tribunal has grossly erred in rejecting the finding of facts on record relied upon by the Assessing Authority while making this addition. 20. Based