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

The appeals are dismissed

Bench: SATISH CHANDRA SHARMA,SURAJ GOVINDARAJ

2) Where any sum referred to in sub-section (1) is credited to any account, whether called “Suspense account” or by any other name, in the books of account of the person liable to pay such income, such crediting shall be deemed to be credit of such income to the account of the payee and the provisions of this section

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)

E. The entire concept of taxing fringe benefits is irrational and has no nexus to be objective sought to be achieved and hence, the chapter requires to be struck down. F. In as much as there is patent discrimination between Government and non-Government employees and also preferential treatment given as per the provisions of Section 115-WC (2

THE PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER vs. M/S OBULAPURAM MINING

Bench: K.SOMASHEKAR,UMESH M ADIGA

e-filed its return of income for the assessment year 2009-10 declaring an income of Rs.486,38,96,690/-. The case was selected for scrutiny and the assessment was completed under Section 143(3) read 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

PR COMMISSIONER OF vs. M/S JEANS KNIT PVT LTD

In the result, we do not find any

Bench: ALOK ARADHE,H.T. NARENDRA PRASAD

2(22)(e) are fully satisfied in the case of the assessee? 7 4. The factual background, in which the aforesaid questions of law arise for our consideration need mention, which are stated infra. The assessee is engaged in the manufacture and export of readymade garments and also engaged in doing job works. The assessee is a 100% export oriented

PR.COMMISSIONER OF vs. M/S JEANS KNIT PVT.LTD

In the result, we do not find any

Bench: ALOK ARADHE,H.T. NARENDRA PRASAD

2(22)(e) are fully satisfied in the case of the assessee? 7 4. The factual background, in which the aforesaid questions of law arise for our consideration need mention, which are stated infra. The assessee is engaged in the manufacture and export of readymade garments and also engaged in doing job works. The assessee is a 100% export oriented

PR COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-4 vs. M/S JEANS KNIT PVT LTD

In the result, we do not find any

Bench: ALOK ARADHE,H.T. NARENDRA PRASAD

2(22)(e) are fully satisfied in the case of the assessee? 7 4. The factual background, in which the aforesaid questions of law arise for our consideration need mention, which are stated infra. The assessee is engaged in the manufacture and export of readymade garments and also engaged in doing job works. The assessee is a 100% export oriented

SRI N GOVINDARAJU vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER

Appeal stands disposed of

Bench: S.SUJATHA,VINEET SARAN

E Sanmathi Indrakumar, Adv.) Appeal is filed under S.260 A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 praying to set aside the order passed by the ITAT, Bangalore in ITA 970/Bang/2009 on 26.04.2010, etc. ® 2 Appeal having been reserved on 20th April, 2015, coming on for pronouncement of Orders this day, Vineet Saran J, delivered the following: JUDGMENT The primary question

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

Bench: H.B.PRABHAKARA SASTRY,VINEET KOTHARI

E R Mr.V.R.Desai, Mr.Atul K.Alur, Mr.N.P.Vivek Mehta & Mrs.J.Tejavathi Advocates for petitioner. Mr.M.Kumar, Addl.Govt. Advocate for respondent. 1. The petitioner assessee, M/s.J.K.Cement Works, Muddapur, Mudhol Taluk, Bagalkot District, Karnataka, has filed these Revision Petitions under Section 65 of the Karnataka Value Added Tax Act, 2003 (for short ‘KVAT Act’) raising a question of law for consideration by this Court, being aggrieved

THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX vs. PRAVEEN V DODDANAVAR

Bench: SREENIVAS HARISH KUMAR,VINEET KOTHARI

E R Mr.V.R.Desai, Mr.Atul K.Alur, Mr.N.P.Vivek Mehta & Mrs.J.Tejavathi Advocates for petitioner. Mr.M.Kumar, Addl.Govt. Advocate for respondent. 1. The petitioner assessee, M/s.J.K.Cement Works, Muddapur, Mudhol Taluk, Bagalkot District, Karnataka, has filed these Revision Petitions under Section 65 of the Karnataka Value Added Tax Act, 2003 (for short ‘KVAT Act’) raising a question of law for consideration by this Court, being aggrieved

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

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

E R Mr.V.R.Desai, Mr.Atul K.Alur, Mr.N.P.Vivek Mehta & Mrs.J.Tejavathi Advocates for petitioner. Mr.M.Kumar, Addl.Govt. Advocate for respondent. 1. The petitioner assessee, M/s.J.K.Cement Works, Muddapur, Mudhol Taluk, Bagalkot District, Karnataka, has filed these Revision Petitions under Section 65 of the Karnataka Value Added Tax Act, 2003 (for short ‘KVAT Act’) raising a question of law for consideration by this Court, being aggrieved

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

e Act was set aside on the ground that there was no exempt income. (ii) the disallowance of interest in respect of share application money was upheld but the rate of interest attributable was reduced to 6% as against 12% held by Assessing Officer and Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) who had upheld the rate of interest

COFFEEDAY GLOBAL LTD. vs. ADDITIONAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX

In the result, the orders dated 21

Bench: ALOK ARADHE,ASHOK S.KINAGI

e Act was set aside on the ground that there was no exempt income. (ii) the disallowance of interest in respect of share application money was upheld but the rate of interest attributable was reduced to 6% as against 12% held by Assessing Officer and Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) who had upheld the rate of interest

COFFEEDAY GLOBAL LTD. vs. ADDITIONAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX

In the result, the orders dated 21

Bench: ALOK ARADHE,ASHOK S.KINAGI

e Act was set aside on the ground that there was no exempt income. (ii) the disallowance of interest in respect of share application money was upheld but the rate of interest attributable was reduced to 6% as against 12% held by Assessing Officer and Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) who had upheld the rate of interest

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

disallowance was founded on the proviso to Section 92C(4) of the Act. - 12 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:36360-DB ITA No. 107 of 2025 C/W ITA No. 106 of 2025 17. It is material to note that the TP adjustments are made pursuant to the APA entered into by the Assessee with CBDT. Section 92CC

THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX vs. M/S QUEST GLOBAL ENGINEERING SERVICES PVT. LTD.,

In the result, we don to find any

Bench: ALOK ARADHE,R. NATARAJ

e) an eligible transaction in respect of trading in commodity derivatives carried out in a recognised association, which is chargeable to commodities transaction tax under Chapter VII of the Finance Act, 2013 (17 of 2013), shall not be deemed to be a speculative transaction. Section 43AA: Subject to the provisions of section 43A, any gain or loss arising on account

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

The appeals stand disposed of, accordingly

Bench: N.KUMAR,B.SREENIVASE GOWDA

e) in ITA No. 879/2008, 880/2008 and 334/2009; Question of law No. (d) in ITA No. 108/2009 (Assessee’s appeal)] “Whether the Tribunal was right in holding that credit for income tax paid in a country outside India in relation to income eligible for deduction under section 10A would not be available under section 90(1)(a)?” [Question

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

The appeals stand disposed of, accordingly

Bench: N.KUMAR,B.SREENIVASE GOWDA

e) in ITA No. 879/2008, 880/2008 and 334/2009; Question of law No. (d) in ITA No. 108/2009 (Assessee’s appeal)] “Whether the Tribunal was right in holding that credit for income tax paid in a country outside India in relation to income eligible for deduction under section 10A would not be available under section 90(1)(a)?” [Question