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

The appeals stand disposed of, accordingly

Bench: N.KUMAR,B.SREENIVASE GOWDA

disallowed on the ground that the DTAA with USA and Canada shows that the claim is admissible only for the taxes paid under Income Tax Act in India and Federal tax in USA and Canada. In coming to the said conclusion the authorities have failed to notice Section 91 of the Act. Statutorily the assessee would be entitled to deduction

THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX vs. M/S. IBC KNOWLEDGE PARK PVT. LTD.,

In the result, the appeals filed by the Revenue

Bench: B.V.NAGARATHNA,JAYANT PATEL

x f) The LESSEE shall, over and above the rent herein reserved, be required to pay only the following charges, which are towards provision and maintenance of facilities and services provided in Annexure II i. For the first term of the lease, a monthly maintenance charge of Rs.3/- (Rupees Three only) per Sq. Ft. of super built up area

THE COMMISIONER OF INCOME-TAX vs. M/S IBC KNOWLEDGE PARK PVT LTD

In the result, the appeals filed by the Revenue

Bench: B.V.NAGARATHNA,JAYANT PATEL

x f) The LESSEE shall, over and above the rent herein reserved, be required to pay only the following charges, which are towards provision and maintenance of facilities and services provided in Annexure II i. For the first term of the lease, a monthly maintenance charge of Rs.3/- (Rupees Three only) per Sq. Ft. of super built up area

THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX vs. M/S. IBC KNOWLEDGE PARK PVT. LTD.,

In the result, the appeals filed by the Revenue

Bench: B.V.NAGARATHNA,JAYANT PATEL

x f) The LESSEE shall, over and above the rent herein reserved, be required to pay only the following charges, which are towards provision and maintenance of facilities and services provided in Annexure II i. For the first term of the lease, a monthly maintenance charge of Rs.3/- (Rupees Three only) per Sq. Ft. of super built up area

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

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

x] and is with the registered dealer taking the deduction at the time any return in respect of the sale is furnished, except such tax paid under sub- section [2] of Section 3.” - 20 - 18. The Cognate Bench of this Court in the case of Kirloskar Electricity Co. Ltd., V/s. State of Karnataka and Another, reported in [2018] 50 GSTR

PR. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX vs. M/S SASKEN

Appeals are dismissed at the stage of admission

Bench: ABHAY SHREENIWAS OKA (CJ),S.G.PANDIT

disallowance of deduction under Section 10A in respect of deemed export on account of sale to another STP unit, the Tribunal, relying upon the decision of Tata Elxsi Ltd. (supra), held in favour of the assessee. Aggrieved by the order of the Tribunal, the revenue has I.T.A.Nos.44-45/2016 - 5 - preferred these appeals urging the following four substantial questions

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

x) Provisions of Section 40(a)(ii) would be applicable. xi) The privilege fee does not satisfy the definition of “fee”, as all the elements of “tax” levied are missing. xii) The payment of privilege fee is not an expenditure incurred towards earning of income. xiii) Section 40(a)(iib) is held as clarificatory in nature. Page No.88

THE PR COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIT(A) vs. M/S BIESSE MANUFACTURING COMPANY PVT LTD

Bench: S.SUJATHA,VINEET KOTHARI

disallowance made Date of Judgment 05-07-2018, ITA No.1085/2017 The Pr. Commissioner of Income Tax & another Vs. M/s.Biesse Manufacturing Company Pvt. Ltd., 5/12 towards belated remittance of employees contribution to PF and ESI by the Assessing Authority u/s. 2(24)(x) of the Act, is no longer res integra and is covered by the decision of the Division Bench

M/S MYSORE POLYMERS & RUBBER PRODUCTS LTD vs. THE COMMISSIONER OF COMMERCIAL TAXES

In the result, writ appeal No

Bench: D.V.SHYLENDRA KUMAR,B.S.INDRAKALA

x) the total amount paid or payable by the dealer as a consideration for the purchase of any of the goods in respect of which tax is leviable at the point of sale; Section 6-B of the Act is quite clear and unambiguous and liability under section 6-B though called as resale

THE PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER vs. M/S OBULAPURAM MINING

Bench: K.SOMASHEKAR,UMESH M ADIGA

2) the question is of general public importance, or, (3) whether it is an open question in the sense that the issue is not settled by the pronouncement of the Supreme Court or 44 the Privy Council or by the Federal Court, or, (4) the issue is not free from difficulty, and (5) it calls for a discussion

SHRI NARAYAN RAO HEBRI vs. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX

The appeal stands dismissed

Bench: S.G.PANDIT,K. V. ARAVIND

2) SCC 744 : (1991) 187 ITR 688] this Court, while dealing with the powers of the Appellate Assistant Commissioner observed that an appellate authority has all the powers which the original authority may have in deciding the question before it subject to the restrictions or limitations if any prescribed by the statutory provisions. In the absence of any statutory provision

COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX vs. M.R.SAMPANGIRAMAIAH

Bench: P.S.DINESH KUMAR,C.M. POONACHA

56 YEARS, R/AT NO.659, 5TH CROSS, 3RD BLOCK, KORAMANGALA, BANGALORE-560 034. …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. S S NAGANAND., SENIOR COUNSEL A/W SRI. VIJAYKUMAR DESAI., ADVOCATE FOR R1; SRI.M R RAJAGOPAL., SENIOR COUNSEL A/W SRI.B M SHIVAJI., ADVOCATE FOR R2) THIS RFA CROB IS FILED UNDER ORDER 41 RULE 22(2) OF CPC., AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE DATED 13.01.2015 PASSED

THE PR. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (4) vs. M/S CHAMUNDI WINERY AND DISTILLERY

Bench: S.SUJATHA,VINEET KOTHARI

2 Godhra Electricity Co. Ltd Vs. CIT 225 ITR 746 (SC) 04-11 13 CIT Vs. Chemosyn Ltd 371 ITR 427 (Bom) 75-79 14 Poorna Electric Supply Co. Ltd Vs. CIT [1965] 56 ITR 521 (SC) 80-85 17 CIT Vs. Chamanlal Mangaldas & Co. 39 ITR 8 (SC) 101-104 18 CIT Vs. Chamanlal Mangaldas

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

Bench: S.SUJATHA,VINEET KOTHARI

2 Godhra Electricity Co. Ltd Vs. CIT 225 ITR 746 (SC) 04-11 13 CIT Vs. Chemosyn Ltd 371 ITR 427 (Bom) 75-79 14 Poorna Electric Supply Co. Ltd Vs. CIT [1965] 56 ITR 521 (SC) 80-85 17 CIT Vs. Chamanlal Mangaldas & Co. 39 ITR 8 (SC) 101-104 18 CIT Vs. Chamanlal Mangaldas