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

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

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

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. 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

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

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

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

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. I have heard the arguments of Sriyuths N Venkataraman, learned Senior counsel appearing on 5 behalf of Sri K.R.Vasudevan, for petitioner, Sri K.V.Aravind, learned Senior panel counsel appearing for respondents. CONTENTIONS ON BEHALF OF ASSESSEE: 4

PR.COMMISSIONER OF INCOMETAX-2 vs. M/S.EYGBS (INDIA) PVT LTD

Bench: CHIEF JUSTICE,C M JOSHI

3) of Section 92C are attracted. It follows that sub-section (4) of Section 92C is not attracted. 25. More importantly, the proviso to sub-section (4) of Section 92C also clearly states that no deduction under Section 10A or 10AA or 10B or under Chapter VI-A of the Act would be allowed in respect of the amount

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

disallowance of business expenditure. In the aforesaid factual background, the instant appeal has been filed. 4. Learned counsel for the assessee submitted that the purpose and intent of Section 40A(3

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

4 Rs.27,31,483/- under section 40A(3) of the Act, on the facts and circumstances of the case? 3. Sri A. Shankar, the learned senior counsel appearing for the appellants counsel, contends that the Authorities have committed an error in misapplying Section 40A of the Act. The only ground for disallowance

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

4 appeal filed by the very assessee relating to the assessment year 1997-98 answering the questions posed for our answer against the assessee in ITA No 1105 of 2006, decided on 19-2-2013. These two questions are answered accordingly. 6. In so far as the question relating to computation of deduction under Section 80HHC

M/S BANGALORE ELECTRICITY SUPPLY COMPANY LTD vs. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX

In the result, the order passed by the tribunal

Bench: ALOK ARADHE,R. NATARAJ

4 issued. The Assessing Officer passed an order under Section 143(3) of the Act on 31.12.2007 and disallowed the deduction

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

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

4. It is the contention of the petitioner that the very same issue came up for adjudication for the Assessment Year 2007-08. Submissions were made by the petitioner pertaining to this issue in terms of the letter dated 11.08.2009. The respondent, after considering the same, completed the assessment under section 143[3] of the Act for the Assessment Year

M/S HUBLI ELECTRICITY SUPPLY CO. vs. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER

In the result, the appeals are disposed of as

Bench: JOHN MICHAEL CUNHA,S.SUJATHA

4)(iv)(c) of the Act, and the same was brought to charge. 6. Aggrieved by the same, an appeal was preferred by the assessee against the order of the assessment under Section 143(3) read with Section 263 of the Act before the Commissioner of Income Tax : 8 : (Appeals) (for short, ‘the CIT(A)’) which came to be dismissed

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

3. The learned counsel for the petitioner would contend that the several reasons assigned by the Assessing Officer in the Assessment orders pertaining to the above years would raise the following issues: i) Section 40(a)(iib) of the Income-tax Act disallows the privilege fee from the Assessment Year 2014-15 and subsequent years only and the amendment