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

The appeals stand disposed of, accordingly

Bench: N.KUMAR,B.SREENIVASE GOWDA

41. But the said meaning of the word can be imported for Section 90(1)(a). As per Section 43(2) “paid” means actually paid or incurred according to the method of computing upon the basis on which the profit or gains are computed under the - 31 - head profit and gains of business or profession. In respect of the income

STATE BANK OF MYSORE vs. THE ADDITIONAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX

Bench: K.S.MUDAGAL,H.G.RAMESH

disallowance under Section 41(1). Therefore, as far as the finding of the Tribunal for the Assessment Year 2005-06, we do concur on principle about the applicability of the provisions of Section 41(4

THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX vs. M/S. STATE BANK OF MYSORE

In the result, the order passed by the tribunal

Bench: ALOK ARADHE,H.T. NARENDRA PRASAD

Section 41(4) of the Act. It was further held that disallowance under Section 14A of the Act towards borrowed

COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX vs. M/S PRIMAL PROJECTS (P) LTD

In the result, the appeal fails and is hereby

Bench: ALOK ARADHE,H.T. NARENDRA PRASAD

41,620 Sq.ft. and therefore had not fulfilled the condition laid out in the approval granted by the Ministry of Commerce and notification from Ministry of Finance. (vi) Whether the Tribunal was correct in law to allow the deduction under section 80IA of the I.T. Act for the financial year 2006-07 when the notification was issued by the CBDT

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

Of the Department's clouded interpretation of the Centum

Bench: ANAND BYRAREDDY

disallowed. The provision is therefore very clearly a substantive one in nature. That the legislature by way of amendment of Section 10(3) has retained the tenor of the earlier provision, with only a rider that a claim for input tax being extended by five preceding months. Apart from this change, there is nothing else that is different

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

Of the Department's clouded interpretation of the Centum

Bench: ANAND BYRAREDDY

disallowed. The provision is therefore very clearly a substantive one in nature. That the legislature by way of amendment of Section 10(3) has retained the tenor of the earlier provision, with only a rider that a claim for input tax being extended by five preceding months. Apart from this change, there is nothing else that is different

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

Of the Department's clouded interpretation of the Centum

Bench: ANAND BYRAREDDY

disallowed. The provision is therefore very clearly a substantive one in nature. That the legislature by way of amendment of Section 10(3) has retained the tenor of the earlier provision, with only a rider that a claim for input tax being extended by five preceding months. Apart from this change, there is nothing else that is different

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

Of the Department's clouded interpretation of the Centum

Bench: ANAND BYRAREDDY

disallowed. The provision is therefore very clearly a substantive one in nature. That the legislature by way of amendment of Section 10(3) has retained the tenor of the earlier provision, with only a rider that a claim for input tax being extended by five preceding months. Apart from this change, there is nothing else that is different

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

Of the Department's clouded interpretation of the Centum

Bench: ANAND BYRAREDDY

disallowed. The provision is therefore very clearly a substantive one in nature. That the legislature by way of amendment of Section 10(3) has retained the tenor of the earlier provision, with only a rider that a claim for input tax being extended by five preceding months. Apart from this change, there is nothing else that is different

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

Of the Department's clouded interpretation of the Centum

Bench: ANAND BYRAREDDY

disallowed. The provision is therefore very clearly a substantive one in nature. That the legislature by way of amendment of Section 10(3) has retained the tenor of the earlier provision, with only a rider that a claim for input tax being extended by five preceding months. Apart from this change, there is nothing else that is different

DEPA INDIA PRIVATE LTD. vs. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA

Of the Department's clouded interpretation of the Centum

Bench: ANAND BYRAREDDY

disallowed. The provision is therefore very clearly a substantive one in nature. That the legislature by way of amendment of Section 10(3) has retained the tenor of the earlier provision, with only a rider that a claim for input tax being extended by five preceding months. Apart from this change, there is nothing else that is different

ACE DESIGNERS LIMITED vs. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA

Of the Department's clouded interpretation of the Centum

Bench: ANAND BYRAREDDY

disallowed. The provision is therefore very clearly a substantive one in nature. That the legislature by way of amendment of Section 10(3) has retained the tenor of the earlier provision, with only a rider that a claim for input tax being extended by five preceding months. Apart from this change, there is nothing else that is different

KAVERI PLASTO CONTAINERS PVT LTD vs. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA

Of the Department's clouded interpretation of the Centum

Bench: ANAND BYRAREDDY

disallowed. The provision is therefore very clearly a substantive one in nature. That the legislature by way of amendment of Section 10(3) has retained the tenor of the earlier provision, with only a rider that a claim for input tax being extended by five preceding months. Apart from this change, there is nothing else that is different

THE PR. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX vs. M/S. TE CONNECTIVITY INDIA PVT. LTD.,

Accordingly dispose of the appeal as allowed

Bench: ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE,S RACHAIAH

4,00,000 (iv) Smt. Mala Logani (Pers. Account) 2,30,000 41,30,000 The balance cash of Rs. 21 lakhs was declared as income for the year ending March 31, 2004, relevant to the assessment year 2004-05. The assessee had also furnished the copies of the balance-sheet, cash book, bank statements, wealth- tax return

THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX vs. TEXAS INSTRUMENTS INDIA PVT LTD

The appeals are dismissed

Bench: SATISH CHANDRA SHARMA,SURAJ GOVINDARAJ

41,570/- which was processed on 8.06.2011, determining the total income of the same amount. Returns were taken up for scrutiny after issuance of statutory notice under Section 143(2) on 14.09.2009. I.T.A. NO.141 OF 2020 c/w I.T.A. NO.151 OF 2020 4 2. The Assessee had claimed deduction of Rs.7,57,22,069/- under Section 80JJ(AA) of Income

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

41,58,944/- 17514/2015 2009-2010 Rs.479,36,60,000/- 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

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

Disallowance of expenses claimed under section 37(1) towards illegal mining. 387,76,69,992/- 4. Aggrieved by the above additions, the assessee preferred an appeal before the Tribunal against the additions made hereinabove, which came to be allowed. 5. It is stated in the appeal that during the assessment proceedings, it was observed that, M/s GLA Trading International