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)

disallowed under section 37 of the Act is outside the purview of fringe benefit tax as explained by CBDT Circular dated 29/8/2005 in response to Question No.35. Hence the contention of the assessee that levy of fringe benefit tax is double taxation is incorrect. 6. It is submitted that the petitioner has contended that the benefits/expenses can be taxed

THE PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER vs. M/S OBULAPURAM MINING

Bench: K.SOMASHEKAR,UMESH M ADIGA

35,052/- by making various additions, which reads as under: Additional / Issues Rs. Transfer pricing adjustments 112,20,92,081/- Claim of bogus transportation expenses of iron ore 40% attributable towards illegal mining. 86,43,47,335/- Disallowance of expenses claimed under section 37(1) towards illegal mining. 387,76,69,992/- 4. Aggrieved by the above additions, the assessee

M/S ANS CONSTRUCTIONS LTD vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF COMMERCIAL

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

35 of the KVAT Act cannot defeat the substantial claim under Section 10[3] of the Act. The revenue is entitled only to verify that the sale invoices are genuine and valid and such input tax credit claim is not duplicate fictitious or bogus. Indeed, it was not in dispute the input tax credit was claimed in the returns filed

BIOCON LIMITED vs. THE DEPUTY

In the result, the impugned order dated 30

Bench: ALOK ARADHE,R. NATARAJ

disallowance. It is further submitted that Section 14A applies only to exempt incomes and since Section 10B of the Act is not an exemption provision as has been held by the Supreme Court in CIT Vs. YOKOGAWA LIMITED, supra, the aforesaid provision does not apply to the fact situation of the case. In support of aforesaid submission, reliance has been

M/S FIDELITY BUSINESS SERVICES INDIA PVT LTD vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX

Bench: S.SUJATHA,VINEET KOTHARI

35. On merits of the case, the learned counsel for the Assessee Company, Mr. Pardiwala drew our attention to the definition of Section 2(22) of the Act which defines the word ‘Dividend’ and the said definition to the extent relevant for his submissions, though we have indicated above that we are not deciding the question of taxability here

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

Bench: H.B.PRABHAKARA SASTRY,VINEET KOTHARI

disallowed in the hands of the petitioner assessee. 14. We are fully fortified in our view by the recent decision of another Division Bench of this Court in the case of Hindustan Uniliver Limited Vs. State of Karnataka [2016] 90 VST 236 (Karn), wherein the Division Bench of this Court, relying upon the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court

THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX vs. PRAVEEN V DODDANAVAR

Bench: SREENIVAS HARISH KUMAR,VINEET KOTHARI

disallowed in the hands of the petitioner assessee. 14. We are fully fortified in our view by the recent decision of another Division Bench of this Court in the case of Hindustan Uniliver Limited Vs. State of Karnataka [2016] 90 VST 236 (Karn), wherein the Division Bench of this Court, relying upon the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court

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

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

disallowed in the hands of the petitioner assessee. 14. We are fully fortified in our view by the recent decision of another Division Bench of this Court in the case of Hindustan Uniliver Limited Vs. State of Karnataka [2016] 90 VST 236 (Karn), wherein the Division Bench of this Court, relying upon the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court

SRI N GOVINDARAJU vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER

Appeal stands disposed of

Bench: S.SUJATHA,VINEET SARAN

2 of the Act to be the price that the capital asset would ordinarily fetch on sale in the open market on the relevant date. ‘Full value of the consideration’ has not been defined. The legislature has expressly drawn a distinction between the two phrases: ‘full value of the consideration’ and ‘fair market value’. The former would be the price

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 INCOME TAX vs. M/S AMALGAMATED BEAN COFFEE TRADING CO LTD

In the result, the orders dated 21

Bench: ALOK ARADHE,ASHOK S.KINAGI

disallowance under Section 14A of the Act, to the extent of Rs.7,35,920/- under Rule 8D(2)(iii) 9 was upheld

COFFEEDAY GLOBAL LTD. vs. ADDITIONAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX

In the result, the orders dated 21

Bench: ALOK ARADHE,ASHOK S.KINAGI

disallowance under Section 14A of the Act, to the extent of Rs.7,35,920/- under Rule 8D(2)(iii) 9 was upheld

COFFEEDAY GLOBAL LTD. vs. ADDITIONAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX

In the result, the orders dated 21

Bench: ALOK ARADHE,ASHOK S.KINAGI

disallowance under Section 14A of the Act, to the extent of Rs.7,35,920/- under Rule 8D(2)(iii) 9 was upheld

MANGALORE REFINERY AND PETROCHEMICALS LTD vs. PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX

In the result, I pass the following:-

Bench: The Hon'Ble Mr.Justice S.R.Krishna Kumar

35,052 29,37,88,047 13 AY 2009-10: Disallowance under section 40(a)(i): Particulars Amount in Rs. Amount in Rs. Relief allowed by CIT(A) Freight Charges Singapore 13,89,95,282 Turkey 2

MANGALORE REFINERY AND PETROCHEMICALS LTD vs. PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX

In the result, I pass the following:-

Bench: The Hon'Ble Mr.Justice S.R.Krishna Kumar

35,052 29,37,88,047 13 AY 2009-10: Disallowance under section 40(a)(i): Particulars Amount in Rs. Amount in Rs. Relief allowed by CIT(A) Freight Charges Singapore 13,89,95,282 Turkey 2

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

Of the Department's clouded interpretation of the Centum

Bench: ANAND BYRAREDDY

2). Also, the tax- invoice is a document that supports the input tax. So, the period in which the tax-invoice is issued is the period in which the input tax has to be deducted to arrive at the net tax payable. That Section 10(3) as it stood originally provided for the assessee to claim credit for the input

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

Of the Department's clouded interpretation of the Centum

Bench: ANAND BYRAREDDY

2). Also, the tax- invoice is a document that supports the input tax. So, the period in which the tax-invoice is issued is the period in which the input tax has to be deducted to arrive at the net tax payable. That Section 10(3) as it stood originally provided for the assessee to claim credit for the input

ACE DESIGNERS LIMITED vs. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA

Of the Department's clouded interpretation of the Centum

Bench: ANAND BYRAREDDY

2). Also, the tax- invoice is a document that supports the input tax. So, the period in which the tax-invoice is issued is the period in which the input tax has to be deducted to arrive at the net tax payable. That Section 10(3) as it stood originally provided for the assessee to claim credit for the input