THE PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER vs. M/S OBULAPURAM MINING

Bench: K.SOMASHEKAR,UMESH M ADIGA

Disallowance of expenses claimed under section 37(1) towards illegal mining. 387,76,69,992/- 4. Aggrieved by the above

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

The appeals stand disposed of, accordingly

Bench: N.KUMAR,B.SREENIVASE GOWDA

4 of the Act. However, subject to the assessee satisfying the conditions prescribed income under Section 10-A is exempted from making such payment. Once the assessee is made to pay tax on such exempted income in the other contracting State then Section 90(1)(a)(ii) enables him to claim credit of the tax paid in the contracting country

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

The appeals stand disposed of, accordingly

Bench: N.KUMAR,B.SREENIVASE GOWDA

4 of the Act. However, subject to the assessee satisfying the conditions prescribed income under Section 10-A is exempted from making such payment. Once the assessee is made to pay tax on such exempted income in the other contracting State then Section 90(1)(a)(ii) enables him to claim credit of the tax paid in the contracting country

THE PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER vs. M/S OBULAPURAM MINING

Bench: K.SOMASHEKAR,UMESH M ADIGA

4 examining the transporters whose statement were recorded by the assessing authority under Section 131 of the Act. Insofar as illegal mining expenses claimed, the Tribunal deleted the disallowance of expenditure relating to the illegal mining by holding that explanation to Section 37

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

Disallowance under section 40(a)(i): Particulars Amount in Rs. Amount in Rs. Relief allowed by CIT(A) Freight Charges (Para 04 of CIT(A) Order) Singapore 25,02,52,995 UAE 4,35,35,052 29,37

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

Disallowance under section 40(a)(i): Particulars Amount in Rs. Amount in Rs. Relief allowed by CIT(A) Freight Charges (Para 04 of CIT(A) Order) Singapore 25,02,52,995 UAE 4,35,35,052 29,37

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)

4. It is submitted that the Explanation to section 115 WC of the act provides for different percentage of fringe benefit for different class of expenditures. The different percentage is on presumptive basis as a proportion of expenses incurred for the purposes referred to in Section 115WB(2) of the Act. As the percentage is on the basis of different

THE PR COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX vs. M/S MPHASIS LTD

The appeal is dismissed accordingly

Bench: SATISH CHANDRA SHARMA,V SRISHANANDA

4. Respectfully following the aforesaid decisions of the Coordinate Bench, we uphold the order of the learned Commissioner of Income tax (Appeals) in allowing the depreciation at 60% on computer peripherals and accessories, and, thus, the ground raised by the revenue is rejected. 5. In the result, the appeal filed by the revenue is dismissed." 6. We are in agreement

SMT. PUNEETHA @ PUNEETHA B. A. vs. SRI. D. RAVI

The appeal is dismissed accordingly

Bench: R DEVDAS

4. Respectfully following the aforesaid decisions of the Coordinate Bench, we uphold the order of the learned Commissioner of Income tax (Appeals) in allowing the depreciation at 60% on computer peripherals and accessories, and, thus, the ground raised by the revenue is rejected. 5. In the result, the appeal filed by the revenue is dismissed." 6. We are in agreement

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

Of the Department's clouded interpretation of the Centum

Bench: ANAND BYRAREDDY

4) of the Act. Therefore the provisions of Section 10(3) of the Act is a Substantive provision vesting in the assessee a right to get input tax credit subject to the claim be made within the time frame and creating a liability on the assessee to forfeit the right to input tax credit if fails to make the claim

ACE DESIGNERS LIMITED vs. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA

Of the Department's clouded interpretation of the Centum

Bench: ANAND BYRAREDDY

4) of the Act. Therefore the provisions of Section 10(3) of the Act is a Substantive provision vesting in the assessee a right to get input tax credit subject to the claim be made within the time frame and creating a liability on the assessee to forfeit the right to input tax credit if fails to make the claim

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

Of the Department's clouded interpretation of the Centum

Bench: ANAND BYRAREDDY

4) of the Act. Therefore the provisions of Section 10(3) of the Act is a Substantive provision vesting in the assessee a right to get input tax credit subject to the claim be made within the time frame and creating a liability on the assessee to forfeit the right to input tax credit if fails to make the claim

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

Of the Department's clouded interpretation of the Centum

Bench: ANAND BYRAREDDY

4) of the Act. Therefore the provisions of Section 10(3) of the Act is a Substantive provision vesting in the assessee a right to get input tax credit subject to the claim be made within the time frame and creating a liability on the assessee to forfeit the right to input tax credit if fails to make the claim

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

Of the Department's clouded interpretation of the Centum

Bench: ANAND BYRAREDDY

4) of the Act. Therefore the provisions of Section 10(3) of the Act is a Substantive provision vesting in the assessee a right to get input tax credit subject to the claim be made within the time frame and creating a liability on the assessee to forfeit the right to input tax credit if fails to make the claim

DEPA INDIA PRIVATE LTD. vs. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA

Of the Department's clouded interpretation of the Centum

Bench: ANAND BYRAREDDY

4) of the Act. Therefore the provisions of Section 10(3) of the Act is a Substantive provision vesting in the assessee a right to get input tax credit subject to the claim be made within the time frame and creating a liability on the assessee to forfeit the right to input tax credit if fails to make the claim

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

Of the Department's clouded interpretation of the Centum

Bench: ANAND BYRAREDDY

4) of the Act. Therefore the provisions of Section 10(3) of the Act is a Substantive provision vesting in the assessee a right to get input tax credit subject to the claim be made within the time frame and creating a liability on the assessee to forfeit the right to input tax credit if fails to make the claim

KAVERI PLASTO CONTAINERS PVT LTD vs. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA

Of the Department's clouded interpretation of the Centum

Bench: ANAND BYRAREDDY

4) of the Act. Therefore the provisions of Section 10(3) of the Act is a Substantive provision vesting in the assessee a right to get input tax credit subject to the claim be made within the time frame and creating a liability on the assessee to forfeit the right to input tax credit if fails to make the claim

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

Of the Department's clouded interpretation of the Centum

Bench: ANAND BYRAREDDY

4) of the Act. Therefore the provisions of Section 10(3) of the Act is a Substantive provision vesting in the assessee a right to get input tax credit subject to the claim be made within the time frame and creating a liability on the assessee to forfeit the right to input tax credit if fails to make the claim