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

Of the Department's clouded interpretation of the Centum

Bench: ANAND BYRAREDDY

disallowed. The provision is therefore very clearly a substantive one in nature. That the legislature by way of amendment of Section 10(3

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

Of the Department's clouded interpretation of the Centum

Bench: ANAND BYRAREDDY

disallowed. The provision is therefore very clearly a substantive one in nature. That the legislature by way of amendment of Section 10(3

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

Of the Department's clouded interpretation of the Centum

Bench: ANAND BYRAREDDY

disallowed. The provision is therefore very clearly a substantive one in nature. That the legislature by way of amendment of Section 10(3

KAVERI PLASTO CONTAINERS PVT LTD vs. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA

Of the Department's clouded interpretation of the Centum

Bench: ANAND BYRAREDDY

disallowed. The provision is therefore very clearly a substantive one in nature. That the legislature by way of amendment of Section 10(3

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

Of the Department's clouded interpretation of the Centum

Bench: ANAND BYRAREDDY

disallowed. The provision is therefore very clearly a substantive one in nature. That the legislature by way of amendment of Section 10(3

DEPA INDIA PRIVATE LTD. vs. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA

Of the Department's clouded interpretation of the Centum

Bench: ANAND BYRAREDDY

disallowed. The provision is therefore very clearly a substantive one in nature. That the legislature by way of amendment of Section 10(3

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

Of the Department's clouded interpretation of the Centum

Bench: ANAND BYRAREDDY

disallowed. The provision is therefore very clearly a substantive one in nature. That the legislature by way of amendment of Section 10(3

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

Of the Department's clouded interpretation of the Centum

Bench: ANAND BYRAREDDY

disallowed. The provision is therefore very clearly a substantive one in nature. That the legislature by way of amendment of Section 10(3

ACE DESIGNERS LIMITED vs. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA

Of the Department's clouded interpretation of the Centum

Bench: ANAND BYRAREDDY

disallowed. The provision is therefore very clearly a substantive one in nature. That the legislature by way of amendment of Section 10(3

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

Section 40A(3). 3. The assessee filed an appeal before the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), who by an order dated 23-02-2011 confirmed the order of the Assessing Officer with regard to the disallowance

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

Section 35(1)(i) also came to be disallowed. Said order of assessment dated 31.01.2013 is impugned in the present writ petition. 3

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

disallowed Rs.5,31,09,701/- on the ground that the assessee contravened the provisions of 3 Section 40A(3) of the Act with

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

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

3] of the Act and it is only in the circumstances where there is ‘reason to believe’ that there is an escapement of income to assessment, Section 147 can be invoked, otherwise it is a review made by the AO with ‘change of opinion’. Learned Counsel submitted that the return as well as the other documents made available

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

disallowance of impugned expenditure under section 40(a)(ia) of the Act. We make it clear that we have not considered the issue on merits i.e., whether the impugned expenditure is commission payments or discounts. It is ordered accordingly.” Submissions: 3

THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX vs. M/S RAJMAHAL SILKS

The appeal is disposed of

Bench: ALOK ARADHE,H.T. NARENDRA PRASAD

disallowing the business expenditure under Section 37(1) of the Act and passed an order under Section 153A read with Section 143(3

PR COMMISSIONER OF vs. M/S GMR HYDERABAD

Appeals stand disposed of accordingly

Bench: S.SUJATHA,RAVI V HOSMANI

disallowance made by assessing authority in respect of Section 14A read with Rule 8D of the Act? 3. Whether on the facts

PR COMMISSIONER OF vs. M/S GMR HYDERABAD

Appeals stand disposed of accordingly

Bench: S.SUJATHA,RAVI V HOSMANI

disallowance made by assessing authority in respect of Section 14A read with Rule 8D of the Act? 3. Whether on the facts