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

70,000/- made disallowance under Section 14A of the Act in a sum of Rs.19,20,039/-, disallowance of provision for ex-gratia Rs.37,52,700/- and disallowance of expenditure on increase in share capital Rs.4,85,000/-, by order dated 26.02.2014. Similarly, an assessment order was passed under Section 143(3

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

The appeals are dismissed

Bench: SATISH CHANDRA SHARMA,SURAJ GOVINDARAJ

3 are answered accordingly. Neither Section 194-C nor 194-I of the Act would be applicable to the lease financing I.T.A. NO.141 OF 2020 c/w I.T.A. NO.151 OF 2020 69 of motor vehicles; thus there could have been no disallowance on the ground that there is no tax deduction at source made by the Assessee. 17.8. The orders passed

COFFEEDAY GLOBAL LTD. vs. ADDITIONAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX

In the result, the orders dated 21

Bench: ALOK ARADHE,ASHOK S.KINAGI

3. Being aggrieved by the order passed by the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), the assessee as well as the revenue filed theappeals before the tribunal The tribunal by an order dated 21.06.2017 partly allowed theappeal preferred by the assessee and revenue and held as under: (i) claim for disallowance under Section 14A of ht e Act was set aside

COFFEEDAY GLOBAL LTD. vs. ADDITIONAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX

In the result, the orders dated 21

Bench: ALOK ARADHE,ASHOK S.KINAGI

3. Being aggrieved by the order passed by the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), the assessee as well as the revenue filed theappeals before the tribunal The tribunal by an order dated 21.06.2017 partly allowed theappeal preferred by the assessee and revenue and held as under: (i) claim for disallowance under Section 14A of ht e Act was set aside

PR. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX vs. M/S AMALGAMATED BEAN COFFEE TRADING CO LTD

In the result, the orders dated 21

Bench: ALOK ARADHE,ASHOK S.KINAGI

3. Being aggrieved by the order passed by the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), the assessee as well as the revenue filed theappeals before the tribunal The tribunal by an order dated 21.06.2017 partly allowed theappeal preferred by the assessee and revenue and held as under: (i) claim for disallowance under Section 14A of ht e Act was set aside

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

disallowed as it was not meant for management of construction, but on other expenses, such as advertisement, sales promotion etc. Therefore, the income had to be assessed under the head income from other sources. The Tribunal held that the income had to be assessed as business income and the assessee could not have received a sum of Rs.78.25 lakh without

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

disallowed as it was not meant for management of construction, but on other expenses, such as advertisement, sales promotion etc. Therefore, the income had to be assessed under the head income from other sources. The Tribunal held that the income had to be assessed as business income and the assessee could not have received a sum of Rs.78.25 lakh without

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

disallowed as it was not meant for management of construction, but on other expenses, such as advertisement, sales promotion etc. Therefore, the income had to be assessed under the head income from other sources. The Tribunal held that the income had to be assessed as business income and the assessee could not have received a sum of Rs.78.25 lakh without

THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX vs. M/S JINDAL ALUMINIUM LIMITED

In the result, we do not find any merit in this

Bench: ALOK ARADHE,H.T. NARENDRA PRASAD

disallowance under Section 14A of the Act in respect of Rs.14,40,470/- to the Assessing Officer. In the aforesaid factual background, the revenue is in appeal before us. 3. Learned counsel for the revenue submitted that Section 80IA(1) of the Act is applicable to eligible business and all profit making and loss making units have to be aggregated

PR COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-7 vs. M/S TALLY SOLUTIONS PVT LTD

In the result, the appeals fail and are hereby

Bench: ALOK ARADHE,H.T. NARENDRA PRASAD

3. I.T.A.No.952/2017 was admitted by a Bench of this Court vide order dated 25.02.2019 on the following substantial question of law: "Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal is justified in setting aside the disallowance of claim of depreciation on purchase of Intellectual Property Rights made by assessing authority under section

PR. COMMISSIONER OF vs. M/S TALLY SOLUTIONS PVT LTD.,

In the result, the appeals fail and are hereby

Bench: ALOK ARADHE,H.T. NARENDRA PRASAD

3. I.T.A.No.952/2017 was admitted by a Bench of this Court vide order dated 25.02.2019 on the following substantial question of law: "Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal is justified in setting aside the disallowance of claim of depreciation on purchase of Intellectual Property Rights made by assessing authority under section

PR COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-7 vs. M/S TALLY SOLUTIONS PVT LTD

In the result, the appeals fail and are hereby

Bench: ALOK ARADHE,H.T. NARENDRA PRASAD

3. I.T.A.No.952/2017 was admitted by a Bench of this Court vide order dated 25.02.2019 on the following substantial question of law: "Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal is justified in setting aside the disallowance of claim of depreciation on purchase of Intellectual Property Rights made by assessing authority under section

THE PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CIT(A) vs. SHRI.S.S. BAKKESH

In the result, both the appeals filed by the Revenue are

Bench: D K SINGH,VENKATESH NAIK T

3) of the Act, at a total assessed income of Rs.15,40,92,700/- for the Assessment Year 2007-08 in ITA No.37/2020 and Rs.17,98,98,400/- for the Assessment Year 2008-09 in ITA No.72/2020. While doing so, the Assessing Officer disallowed the claim for deduction under Section 80 JJA in respect of bio-fuel pellets. However

THE PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER vs. M/S OBULAPURAM MINING

Bench: K.SOMASHEKAR,UMESH M ADIGA

3 SCC 179, it is held that a point of law which admits of no two opinions may be a proposition of law but cannot be a substantial question of law. To be 'substantial' a question of law must be debatable, not previously settled by law of the land or a binding precedent, and must have a material bearing

THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX vs. M/S VESESH INFOTECHNICS LIMITEDD

Bench: B.MANOHAR,K.SREEDHAR RAO

disallowing the deduction under Section 80-IB for the assessment year 2000-2001 and 2001-2002 and also litigation expenditure of Rs.19,00,000/-, the assessee preferred an appeal before the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-III, Bangalore contending that the order passed by the Assessing Authority and also reopening 8 the assessment for the assessment year

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

M/S KARNATAKA STATE INDUSTRIAL AND INFRASTRUCTURE DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION LTD vs. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX

The appeal is allowed and the impugned

Bench: SATISH CHANDRA SHARMA,V SRISHANANDA

3 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:52370-DB STA No. 11 of 2021 CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE B M SHYAM PRASAD and HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE T.M.NADAF ORAL JUDGMENT (PER: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE B M SHYAM PRASAD) The appellant has impugned the orders under Sections 69 and 64 of the Karnataka Value Added Tax Act, 2003 [for short

PR COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-6 vs. M/S SUBEX TECHNOLOGIES LTD

In the result, the appeal is disposed of

Bench: ALOK ARADHE,H.T. NARENDRA PRASAD

70,10,894/- was declared. The case was selected for scrutiny and notices under Section 143(2) dated 21.08.2009 and Section 142(1) dated 04.06.2010 and 12.08.2010 were issued and served on the 5 assessee. 4. The Assessing Officer on perusal of the statement of accounts, noticed that assessee has debited a sum of Rs.62