KAVERI PLASTO CONTAINERS PVT LTD vs. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA

Of the Department's clouded interpretation of the Centum

Bench: ANAND BYRAREDDY

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

disallow the deduction claimed as expenditure in respect of payments is made in cash. It was further held that consideration of business expediency and other relevant factors are not 15 excluded and genuine and bonafide transactions are not taken out of the sweep of the Section and it is open for the assessee to furnish to the satisfaction

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

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

3) dated 28.04.2011 by determining the income at Rs.255990979/- later it was rectified u/s 154 and the income assessed at Rs.271568373/- by disallowing the depreciation loss. - 57 - Audit scrutiny of assessment records revealed that the assessee had claimed an expenditure of Rs.14783.96 lakh under the head expenses as per Schedule 17 to accounts. However, on perusal of records

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 on 25.10.2019. Subsequently, the PCIT issued a notice under Section 263 of the Act seeking to revise the final assessment order dated 25.10.2019 and rejecting the objections of the respondent, passed the revisionary order dated 30.03.2022 (Annexure E) holding that the assessment - 10 - ITA No.53 of 2024 order was erroneous inasmuch

M/S T T K PRESTIGE LTD vs. THE UNION OF INDIA REPTD BY ITS FINANCE SECRETARY

Bench: The Hon’Ble Mr.Justice P.B. Bajanthri W.P. No.26037/2005 C/W W.P.No.4464/2007 & W.P.No.27087/2005(It)

17 and accordingly taxed under section 15 of the Income-tax Act in the hands of the employee and a large number of fringe benefits were taxed by the employer-based disallowance method where the quantum of the disallowance was estimated on a presumptive basis. In practice, taxation of fringe benefits by the employer-based disallowance method resulted in large

PR COMMISSIONER OF vs. M/S GMR HYDERABAD

Appeals stand disposed of accordingly

Bench: S.SUJATHA,RAVI V HOSMANI

3. Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Tribunal is right in law in setting aside disallowance made under Section 40[a][ia] for non deduction of TDS on payments made to Director’s towards sitting fees by holding that - 16 - the amendment will apply for A.Y.2014-15 onwards?” In ITA No.381/2018

THE PR. COMMISIONER OF INCOME TAX vs. M/S. GMR INFRASTRUCTURE LTD

Appeals stand disposed of accordingly

Bench: S.SUJATHA,RAVI V HOSMANI

3. Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Tribunal is right in law in setting aside disallowance made under Section 40[a][ia] for non deduction of TDS on payments made to Director’s towards sitting fees by holding that - 16 - the amendment will apply for A.Y.2014-15 onwards?” In ITA No.381/2018

PR COMMISSIONER OF vs. M/S GMR HYDERABAD

Appeals stand disposed of accordingly

Bench: S.SUJATHA,RAVI V HOSMANI

3. Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Tribunal is right in law in setting aside disallowance made under Section 40[a][ia] for non deduction of TDS on payments made to Director’s towards sitting fees by holding that - 16 - the amendment will apply for A.Y.2014-15 onwards?” In ITA No.381/2018