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

disallowance of privilege fees in the assessment order is in violation of the powers of the State to have its Statute as per Entry 8 of list-II of Seventh Schedule and being within its powers under Article 245(1) and 246(3) of the Constitution of India and etc; These Writ Petitions coming on for orders, this

RNS INFRASTRUCTURE LIMITED vs. INCOME TAX SETTLEMENT COMMISSIONER

In the result, writ petitions are allowed

Bench: The Hon’Ble Mr. Justice L. Narayana Swamy Writ Petition Nos.46275-46289 Of 2016 (T-It)

245-D(1) of the 5 Act so as to proceed with it. After considering the report of the respondent No.2, respondent No.1 passed an order under Section 245D(2C) of the Act on 3rd April 2014 holding that the application of the petitioner is not invalid. 5. Aggrieved by the said order, respondent No.2 filed writ petition No.44007

THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX vs. M/S JINDAL ALUMINIUM LIMITED

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

Bench: ALOK ARADHE,H.T. NARENDRA PRASAD

disallowance of expenditure under Section 14A as the assessee was already having it sown surplus fund and the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) as well as the Tribunal have allowed the claim under Section 14A of the Act to the extent of Rs.26,61,011/- only after being satisfied that the aforesaid amount was 9 invested from the assessee

COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-III, vs. M/S. TELCO CONSTRUCTION

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

Bench: ALOK ARADHE,R. NATARAJ

Section 40(a)(ia) of the Act is not required. It is further submitted that so far as issue with regard to 10 disallowance of consultancy charges is concerned, while considering the nature of expenditure to the capital or revenue the test to be applied is also whether there is any new asset being created or whether it is giving

THE PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER vs. M/S OBULAPURAM MINING

Bench: K.SOMASHEKAR,UMESH M ADIGA

disallowed. The jurisdictional error committed is the assessing officer’s jurisdiction is Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, 35 Central Circle-1(3), Bengaluru, whereas the jurisdictional assessing officer of the transporters is located in Andhra Pradesh. 31.Admittedly, as stated above the evidence of transporters recorded by the assessing officer outside the jurisdiction of Bengaluru has not been taken on record

COFFEE DAY GLOBAL LIMITED vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX

The appeal is allowed

Bench: SATISH CHANDRA SHARMA,R. NATARAJ

Section 36(1)(iii) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (for short, ‘the Act’). 2. Briefly stated, the appellant filed its NIL return for assessment year 2013-14 which was taken up for assessment. The Assessing Officer passed an order of assessment dated 10.03.2016 disallowing a sum of Rs.1,46,80,683/-, which was interest on the borrowed capital

THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX vs. M/S AMCO POWER SYSTEMS LTD.,

Bench: B.MANOHAR,VINEET SARAN

disallowance of lease rentals paid by it to the extent of Rs.2,08,080/-. The Tribunal, however dismissed the appeal of the Revenue, and partly allowed the appeal of the respondent-assessee by allowing the benefit of set-off of brought forward losses, but did not give the benefit of lease rentals paid by the assessee. Challenging the said order

THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX vs. M/S AMCO POWER SYSTEMS LTD.,

Bench: B.MANOHAR,VINEET SARAN

disallowance of lease rentals paid by it to the extent of Rs.2,08,080/-. The Tribunal, however dismissed the appeal of the Revenue, and partly allowed the appeal of the respondent-assessee by allowing the benefit of set-off of brought forward losses, but did not give the benefit of lease rentals paid by the assessee. Challenging the said order

THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX vs. M/S AMCO POWER SYSTEMS LTD.,

Bench: B.MANOHAR,VINEET SARAN

disallowance of lease rentals paid by it to the extent of Rs.2,08,080/-. The Tribunal, however dismissed the appeal of the Revenue, and partly allowed the appeal of the respondent-assessee by allowing the benefit of set-off of brought forward losses, but did not give the benefit of lease rentals paid by the assessee. Challenging the said order

THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX vs. M/S AMCO POWER SYSTEMS LTD

Bench: B.MANOHAR,VINEET SARAN

disallowance of lease rentals paid by it to the extent of Rs.2,08,080/-. The Tribunal, however dismissed the appeal of the Revenue, and partly allowed the appeal of the respondent-assessee by allowing the benefit of set-off of brought forward losses, but did not give the benefit of lease rentals paid by the assessee. Challenging the said order

THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX vs. KARNATAKA STATE BEVERAGES CORPORATION

Bench: P.S.DINESH KUMAR,JAYANT PATEL

Section 24 of the Karnataka Excise Act, 1965 is illegal. 6. The respondent-Company filed respective writ petitions before the learned Single Judge challenging the aforesaid assessment orders for the respective years passed by the Assessment Officer and prayed to declare disallowance of the privilege fee in the assessment year as in violation of the powers of the State

THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX vs. M/S KARNATAKA STATE BEVERAGES CORPORATION LIMITED

Bench: P.S.DINESH KUMAR,JAYANT PATEL

Section 24 of the Karnataka Excise Act, 1965 is illegal. 6. The respondent-Company filed respective writ petitions before the learned Single Judge challenging the aforesaid assessment orders for the respective years passed by the Assessment Officer and prayed to declare disallowance of the privilege fee in the assessment year as in violation of the powers of the State

COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX vs. M/S PRIMAL PROJECTS (P) LTD

In the result, the appeal fails and is hereby

Bench: ALOK ARADHE,H.T. NARENDRA PRASAD

disallowed the claim of the assessee on the ground that the assessee has not complied with the mandatory conditions stipulated in the scheme framed by the Central Government viz., Industrial Parks Scheme, 2002 (hereinafter referred to as 'the scheme' for short). It was held that five software companies were not located at the time of sale of built up area

COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-III vs. M./S WIPRO LIMITED

The appeal is disposed of

Bench: ALOK ARADHE,H.T. NARENDRA PRASAD

disallowance in respect of reimbursement of medical expenses granted by the assessee to its employees by ignoring the fact that the same is excluded as per proviso to viii of Section 17(2) of the Act read with Rule 3. It is also submitted that as per Clause 6 expenses relating to medical treatment incurred by the employer

THE PR. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-2 vs. M/S LTI MINDTREE LTD

Bench: JAYANT BANERJI,S.G.PANDIT

245/- on goodwill was denied; the claim of allowances towards provisions of discounts of Rs.29,00,00,000/- without considering the enhanced income for deduction under Section 10AA of the Act was denied; Insurance Charges of Rs.2,53,00,297/- from export turn-over in computing under Section 10AA of the - 4 - ITA No. 147 of 2024 Act was excluded

PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX vs. M/S MEDICAL RELIEF SOCIETY OF

Appeal is dismissed by

Bench: S.G.PANDIT,C.M. POONACHA

disallowance of surplus on sale of assets even though entire 1 Hereinafter referred to as ‘Tribunal’ - 3 - NC: 2024:KHC:12157-DB ITA No. 179 of 2021 sale consideration amounting to Rs.24,50,000/- as receipts for purpose of calculating the income available for application during the year is required to be considered since assessee is claiming deduction under Section

M/S NITESH vs. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER

In the result, the following:

Bench: P.S.DINESH KUMAR,M G UMA

Section 143(1) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 ('Act' for short). The case was taken up for scrutiny. The Assessing Officer sought for explanation with regard to difference between the tax liability arising between original return and the revised return. Assessee replied stating that the deduction of premium on redemption of debentures to the tune of 1 Assessment Year

M/S THE ESTATE vs. THE ASST COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX

The appeal is disposed of

Bench: ALOK ARADHE,RAVI V HOSMANI

Section 260-A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’, for short) has been filed by the assessee which was admitted by a Bench of this Court on the following substantial questions of law: (1) Whether the Tribunal was justified in law in confirming the addition of Rs.54 lakhs in respect of demurrages for delay