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

The appeals stand disposed of, accordingly

Bench: N.KUMAR,B.SREENIVASE GOWDA

36. The Apex Court had an occasion to go into the validity of the agreements entered into under these provisions and their enforceability in the case of UNION OF INDIA AND ANOTHER VS. AZADI BACHAO ANDOLAN AND ANOTHER reported in 263 ITR 706. Dealing with the purpose of provisions for avoidance of double taxation, the Supreme Court at page

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

The appeals stand disposed of, accordingly

Bench: N.KUMAR,B.SREENIVASE GOWDA

36. The Apex Court had an occasion to go into the validity of the agreements entered into under these provisions and their enforceability in the case of UNION OF INDIA AND ANOTHER VS. AZADI BACHAO ANDOLAN AND ANOTHER reported in 263 ITR 706. Dealing with the purpose of provisions for avoidance of double taxation, the Supreme Court at page

THE PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER vs. M/S OBULAPURAM MINING

Bench: K.SOMASHEKAR,UMESH M ADIGA

VIII. —An issue heard and finally decided by a Court of limited jurisdiction, competent to decide such issue, shall operate as res judicata in a subsequent suit, notwithstanding that such Court of limited jurisdiction was not competent to try such subsequent suit or the suit in which such issue has been subsequently raised.” 36.It is also relevant to refer Section

THE COMMISSINER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS) AND ANR vs. THE BIJAPUR DISTRICT CENTRAL

Bench: R.DEVDAS,VINEET KOTHARI

disallowance of such interest paid to the members without TDS, was liable to be made as per the provisions of Section 40 (a) (ia) of the Act. 4. Both the learned counsel at Bar fairly submitted that the said issue is no longer res-integra in view of the CBTD Circular No.19/2015 holding that such Co-operative Banks

M/S SUBEX LTD vs. THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-III,

In the result, appeal is partly allowed as indicated

Bench: S.SUJATHA,RAVI V HOSMANI

disallowed subsequently, without disturbing the decision in the initial year. Post action of the Assessing Officer in modifying the original order would not cure the flaw pointed out in Shasun Chemicals and Drugs Ltd., supra. We answer this issue in favour of the assessee and against the Revenue. Re. Substantial Question of Law No.2: 13. Learned counsel for both sides

THE PR. COMMISSIONER OF vs. M/S. CORPORATION BANK

Appeal stands dismissed accordingly

Bench: S.SUJATHA,S RACHAIAH

disallowances made under Section 36(1) (viia) and also (viii) by relying upon its earlier orders passed for the assessment

M/S BIG BAGS INTERNATIONAL (P) LTD vs. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX

In the result, the order of the tribunal to the

Bench: ALOK ARADHE,H.T. NARENDRA PRASAD

36(1)(vii) of the Act are not applicable when admittedly the amount written off as debt was offered as income and accepted by the department in the earlier years and consequently passed a perverse order on the facts and circumstance of the case? (iv) Without prejudice whether the Tribunal erred in law in not granting deduction for bad debts

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

36,60,000/- 11 The Assessing Officer has disallowed the Privilege fee on the following grounds namely: i) The privilege fee paid is more than the surplus earned by the Company in the trade of liquor. ii) The distribution of profits arising in the hands of 50 CL-11 Licence holders was taken over by the State Government undertaking, namely

THE RADDI SAHAKAR BANK NIYAMIT vs. ADDITIONAL/ASSISTNAT COMMISSIONER OFM INCOME TAX

Bench: The Hon'Ble Mr Justice M.I.Arun

disallowing the deductions as claimed by the petitioner, as stated above, vide Annexure-G to the writ petition. 2. Aggrieved by the order of the fifth respondent at Annexure-E to the writ petition, the petitioner preferred an appeal before the Tribunal and the order at Annexure-J, dated 31.07.2020 has been passed by the Tribunal, wherein for certain issues

XIAOMI TECHNOLOGY INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX

In the result, I pass the following:

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

disallowed. On 10.08.2022, petitioner submitted a detailed response along with documents and contested the said Notice and proceedings. - 6 - 2.3 On 11.08.2022, upon obtaining approval from the 3rd respondent, the 1st respondent passed the impugned order under Section 281B of the I.T.Act provisionally attaching the subject fixed deposits of the petitioner in a sum of INR 3,700 crores

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

Bench: B.MANOHAR,VINEET SARAN

viii. 13/04/2004 Rs. 1,60,000 ix. 13/07/2004 Rs. 1,00,000 x. 27/07/2004 Rs. 2,00,000 xi. 06/09/2004 Rs. 3,00,000 xii. 10/12/2004 Rs. 5,00,000 xiii. 09/03/2005 Rs. 10,000 xiv. 31/01/2006 Rs. 3,72,00,000 Total Rs. 5,00,00,000 6 4. For the assessment year 2003-04, the facts of which

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

Bench: B.MANOHAR,VINEET SARAN

viii. 13/04/2004 Rs. 1,60,000 ix. 13/07/2004 Rs. 1,00,000 x. 27/07/2004 Rs. 2,00,000 xi. 06/09/2004 Rs. 3,00,000 xii. 10/12/2004 Rs. 5,00,000 xiii. 09/03/2005 Rs. 10,000 xiv. 31/01/2006 Rs. 3,72,00,000 Total Rs. 5,00,00,000 6 4. For the assessment year 2003-04, the facts of which

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

Bench: B.MANOHAR,VINEET SARAN

viii. 13/04/2004 Rs. 1,60,000 ix. 13/07/2004 Rs. 1,00,000 x. 27/07/2004 Rs. 2,00,000 xi. 06/09/2004 Rs. 3,00,000 xii. 10/12/2004 Rs. 5,00,000 xiii. 09/03/2005 Rs. 10,000 xiv. 31/01/2006 Rs. 3,72,00,000 Total Rs. 5,00,00,000 6 4. For the assessment year 2003-04, the facts of which

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

Bench: B.MANOHAR,VINEET SARAN

viii. 13/04/2004 Rs. 1,60,000 ix. 13/07/2004 Rs. 1,00,000 x. 27/07/2004 Rs. 2,00,000 xi. 06/09/2004 Rs. 3,00,000 xii. 10/12/2004 Rs. 5,00,000 xiii. 09/03/2005 Rs. 10,000 xiv. 31/01/2006 Rs. 3,72,00,000 Total Rs. 5,00,00,000 6 4. For the assessment year 2003-04, the facts of which

THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX vs. KARNATAKA STATE BEVERAGES CORPORATION

Bench: P.S.DINESH KUMAR,JAYANT PATEL

36,60,000/- 5. The assessing officer has disallowed the privilege fee on the following grounds: (i) the privilege fees paid is beyond surplus earned by the Company in the trade of liquor. (ii) The distribution of the profits arising in the hands of 50 CL-11 licence holders was taken over by the State Government undertaking namely the respondent

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

Bench: P.S.DINESH KUMAR,JAYANT PATEL

36,60,000/- 5. The assessing officer has disallowed the privilege fee on the following grounds: (i) the privilege fees paid is beyond surplus earned by the Company in the trade of liquor. (ii) The distribution of the profits arising in the hands of 50 CL-11 licence holders was taken over by the State Government undertaking namely the respondent

PR COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX vs. M/S ENNOBLE CONSTRUCTION

Bench: KRISHNA S.DIXIT,P.KRISHNA BHAT

disallowance; the fact that for the Assessment Year 2008 – 09 some addition was made under the said head, cannot be the sole basis for making such an addition for the subsequent Assessment Year, each assessment being an independent compact. He also pleaded about CBI raid & seizure of all documents, not even a piece of paper being in his custody

THE PR. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX vs. M/S CANARA HOUSING DEVELOPMENT COMPANY

In the result, the above appeal is allowed and the

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

viii. Section 14 of the Act of 1932 deals with the property belonging to the partnership firm, if rights and interest in the property originally brought into the stock of the firm; ix. The books of accounts of the assessee used to disclose various properties owned by the assessee though these properties are not registered in the name

PR. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX vs. M/S CHAMUNDI WINERY AND DISTILLERY

Bench: S.SUJATHA,VINEET KOTHARI

1)(c) for concealment of particulars of income is separately initiated.” COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS): 17. The Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) however, allowed the Appeal of the Assessee with the following observations:- “3.3 I have carefully considered the appellant’s submissions and also perused the assessment order. I find that a similar issue was involved in the appellant