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

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

d], [e], [f] and [g] are not pressed as having rendered infructuous. In W.P.No.32896/2016 the petitioner has challenged the reassessment orders as well as the - 7 - demand notices dated 17.05.2016 and 18.05.2016 relating to the assessment years 2012-13 and 2013-14 respectively. Though the petitioner has sought for a direction to the respondent to allow the deduction

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

The appeals stand disposed of, accordingly

Bench: N.KUMAR,B.SREENIVASE GOWDA

d) in ITA No. 108/2009 (Assessee’s appeal)] “Whether the Tribunal was right in holding that credit for income tax paid in a country outside India in relation to income eligible for deduction under section 10A would not be available under section 90(1)(a)?” [Question of law No. 18 in ITA Nos. 210 & 211/2009 (Department’s Appeal)] - 25 - “Whether

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

The appeals stand disposed of, accordingly

Bench: N.KUMAR,B.SREENIVASE GOWDA

d) in ITA No. 108/2009 (Assessee’s appeal)] “Whether the Tribunal was right in holding that credit for income tax paid in a country outside India in relation to income eligible for deduction under section 10A would not be available under section 90(1)(a)?” [Question of law No. 18 in ITA Nos. 210 & 211/2009 (Department’s Appeal)] - 25 - “Whether

M/S. EVERGREEN HARDWARE STORES vs. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF

Appeal is allowed

Bench: P.S.DINESH KUMAR,UMESH M ADIGA

4. Re-disallowance of Rs.53,367/- under Section 14A of the IT Act. Shri. Shankar submitted that assessee had made investment of Rs.1,06,73,419/- in various mutual funds from out of the Bank loans and Partners' Capital Account and paid interest on the borrowings. The Assessing Officer called upon the assessee to show cause

DEPA INDIA PRIVATE LTD. vs. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA

Of the Department's clouded interpretation of the Centum

Bench: ANAND BYRAREDDY

d) When a dealer sells, the other dealer purchases. Every sale must have a corresponding purchase; e) After the tax-invoice is issued, either the tax is paid immediately or becomes payable. This ‘paid’ tax or ‘payable’ tax is the ‘input tax’ deductible by a registered dealer subject to the restrictions specified; and f) Section

ACE DESIGNERS LIMITED vs. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA

Of the Department's clouded interpretation of the Centum

Bench: ANAND BYRAREDDY

d) When a dealer sells, the other dealer purchases. Every sale must have a corresponding purchase; e) After the tax-invoice is issued, either the tax is paid immediately or becomes payable. This ‘paid’ tax or ‘payable’ tax is the ‘input tax’ deductible by a registered dealer subject to the restrictions specified; and f) Section

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

Of the Department's clouded interpretation of the Centum

Bench: ANAND BYRAREDDY

d) When a dealer sells, the other dealer purchases. Every sale must have a corresponding purchase; e) After the tax-invoice is issued, either the tax is paid immediately or becomes payable. This ‘paid’ tax or ‘payable’ tax is the ‘input tax’ deductible by a registered dealer subject to the restrictions specified; and f) Section

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

Of the Department's clouded interpretation of the Centum

Bench: ANAND BYRAREDDY

d) When a dealer sells, the other dealer purchases. Every sale must have a corresponding purchase; e) After the tax-invoice is issued, either the tax is paid immediately or becomes payable. This ‘paid’ tax or ‘payable’ tax is the ‘input tax’ deductible by a registered dealer subject to the restrictions specified; and f) Section

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

Of the Department's clouded interpretation of the Centum

Bench: ANAND BYRAREDDY

d) When a dealer sells, the other dealer purchases. Every sale must have a corresponding purchase; e) After the tax-invoice is issued, either the tax is paid immediately or becomes payable. This ‘paid’ tax or ‘payable’ tax is the ‘input tax’ deductible by a registered dealer subject to the restrictions specified; and f) Section

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

Of the Department's clouded interpretation of the Centum

Bench: ANAND BYRAREDDY

d) When a dealer sells, the other dealer purchases. Every sale must have a corresponding purchase; e) After the tax-invoice is issued, either the tax is paid immediately or becomes payable. This ‘paid’ tax or ‘payable’ tax is the ‘input tax’ deductible by a registered dealer subject to the restrictions specified; and f) Section

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

Of the Department's clouded interpretation of the Centum

Bench: ANAND BYRAREDDY

d) When a dealer sells, the other dealer purchases. Every sale must have a corresponding purchase; e) After the tax-invoice is issued, either the tax is paid immediately or becomes payable. This ‘paid’ tax or ‘payable’ tax is the ‘input tax’ deductible by a registered dealer subject to the restrictions specified; and f) Section

KAVERI PLASTO CONTAINERS PVT LTD vs. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA

Of the Department's clouded interpretation of the Centum

Bench: ANAND BYRAREDDY

d) When a dealer sells, the other dealer purchases. Every sale must have a corresponding purchase; e) After the tax-invoice is issued, either the tax is paid immediately or becomes payable. This ‘paid’ tax or ‘payable’ tax is the ‘input tax’ deductible by a registered dealer subject to the restrictions specified; and f) Section

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

Of the Department's clouded interpretation of the Centum

Bench: ANAND BYRAREDDY

d) When a dealer sells, the other dealer purchases. Every sale must have a corresponding purchase; e) After the tax-invoice is issued, either the tax is paid immediately or becomes payable. This ‘paid’ tax or ‘payable’ tax is the ‘input tax’ deductible by a registered dealer subject to the restrictions specified; and f) Section

PR. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-2 vs. M/S.J.J.GLASTRONICS PVT LTD

The appeal stands dismissed

Bench: S.SUJATHA,J.M.KHAZI

disallowance under Section 14A has to be adopted while arriving at book profit. Learned counsel further submitted that the Miscellaneous - 6 - Petition filed under Section 254(2) of the Act has been dismissed by the Tribunal without application of mind and hence seeks to answer the substantial question of law in favour of the revenue and against the assessee. 4

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

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

d) for costs of this Petition. “ 2. Both the petitions are by the same petitioner – assessee seeking identical reliefs. While W.P.No.10551/2022 is in relation to the assessment year 2008-09, W.P.No.10523/2022 is in relation to the assessment year 2009-10. Since common issues arise for consideration in both the matters, they are taken up together and disposed

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

d) for costs of this Petition. “ 2. Both the petitions are by the same petitioner – assessee seeking identical reliefs. While W.P.No.10551/2022 is in relation to the assessment year 2008-09, W.P.No.10523/2022 is in relation to the assessment year 2009-10. Since common issues arise for consideration in both the matters, they are taken up together and disposed

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

Bench: S.SUJATHA,VINEET KOTHARI

d) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as the ‘Act’ for short) in terms of Section 115-O of the Act on the pay-out by it for buy-back of its own shares from its foreign Holding Company, M/s. FIS Holding Muritian Ltd. incorporated in Mauritius. 7. The Appellant Assessee Company bought back its own shares