PR COMMISSIONER OF vs. M/S GMR HYDERABAD

Appeals stand disposed of accordingly

Bench: S.SUJATHA,RAVI V HOSMANI

14A read with Rule 8D of the Act? 3. Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Tribunal is right in law in setting aside disallowance made under Section 40[a][ia] for non deduction of TDS on payments made to Director’s towards sitting fees by holding that - 16 - the amendment will

PR COMMISSIONER OF vs. M/S GMR HYDERABAD

Appeals stand disposed of accordingly

Bench: S.SUJATHA,RAVI V HOSMANI

14A read with Rule 8D of the Act? 3. Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Tribunal is right in law in setting aside disallowance made under Section 40[a][ia] for non deduction of TDS on payments made to Director’s towards sitting fees by holding that - 16 - the amendment will

THE PR. COMMISIONER OF INCOME TAX vs. M/S. GMR INFRASTRUCTURE LTD

Appeals stand disposed of accordingly

Bench: S.SUJATHA,RAVI V HOSMANI

14A read with Rule 8D of the Act? 3. Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Tribunal is right in law in setting aside disallowance made under Section 40[a][ia] for non deduction of TDS on payments made to Director’s towards sitting fees by holding that - 16 - the amendment will

PR COMMISSIONER OF vs. M/S GMR HYDERABAD

Appeals stand disposed of accordingly

Bench: S.SUJATHA,RAVI V HOSMANI

14A read with Rule 8D of the Act? 3. Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Tribunal is right in law in setting aside disallowance made under Section 40[a][ia] for non deduction of TDS on payments made to Director’s towards sitting fees by holding that - 16 - the amendment will

PR. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (CENTRAL) vs. M/S. DELHI INTERNATIONAL AIRPORT PVT. LTD.,

Appeals stand disposed of accordingly

Bench: S.SUJATHA,RAVI V HOSMANI

14A read with Rule 8D of the Act? 3. Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Tribunal is right in law in setting aside disallowance made under Section 40[a][ia] for non deduction of TDS on payments made to Director’s towards sitting fees by holding that - 16 - the amendment will

THE PR. COMMISIONER INCOME TAX vs. M/S. GMR INFRASTRUCTURE LTD

Appeals stand disposed of accordingly

Bench: S.SUJATHA,RAVI V HOSMANI

14A read with Rule 8D of the Act? 3. Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Tribunal is right in law in setting aside disallowance made under Section 40[a][ia] for non deduction of TDS on payments made to Director’s towards sitting fees by holding that - 16 - the amendment will

PR COMMISSIONER OF vs. M/S GMR HYDERABAD

Appeals stand disposed of accordingly

Bench: S.SUJATHA,RAVI V HOSMANI

14A read with Rule 8D of the Act? 3. Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Tribunal is right in law in setting aside disallowance made under Section 40[a][ia] for non deduction of TDS on payments made to Director’s towards sitting fees by holding that - 16 - the amendment will

PR COMMISSIONER OF vs. M/S GMR HYDERABAD

Appeals stand disposed of accordingly

Bench: S.SUJATHA,RAVI V HOSMANI

14A read with Rule 8D of the Act? 3. Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Tribunal is right in law in setting aside disallowance made under Section 40[a][ia] for non deduction of TDS on payments made to Director’s towards sitting fees by holding that - 16 - the amendment will

ULTRATECH CEMENT LIMITED vs. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA AND ORS

Bench: S.R.KRISHNA KUMAR,K S HEMALEKHA

14A) BEGUMBEE W/O MOHAMMED HANEEF, AGED MAJOR. 14B) MOHAMMED AYYUB S/O MOHAMMED HANEEF AGED MAJOR. 14C) MD. KHAJA S/O MOHAMMED HANEEF AGED MAJOR. 14D) BABUMIYA S/O MOHAMMED HANEEF AGED MAJOR. 14E) PUTALIBEGUM W/O MOHAMMAD HUSSAIN AGED MAJOR. 14F) SYEDA BEGUM W/O MOHAMMED ALI AGED MAJOR. 14G) MOHAMMED IMAM S/O MOHAMMAD ALI AGED MAJOR. 14H) MOHAMMED RIZWAN S/O MOHAMMAD ALI AGED

SHRI. SHANKARLAL GILADA vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER,

Bench: G.NARENDAR,M.NAGAPRASANNA

house property, captive income and income from other sources for the assessment year 2013-14. The appellant filed return of income on 23.10.2013 declaring his total income of Rs.10,35,060/- for the assessment year 2013-14. His statement of computation of tax was also enclosed to the return that was filed. 3. It is the case of the appellant

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

The appeal is dismissed

Bench: B.V.NAGARATHNA,JAYANT PATEL

house R&D centre needs to be reduced from gross expenditure and in accordance with parameters of the provision? ii) Whether on the facts and the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was corrected in law in deleting the addition made under Section 14A computed under Rule 8D(2)(ii) amounting to Rs.49,42,473/- even when the assessing authority

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

The appeals stand disposed of, accordingly

Bench: N.KUMAR,B.SREENIVASE GOWDA

14A of the Act categorically states no deduction shall be allowed in respect of expenditure incurred by the assessee in relation to income which does not form part of the total income under the Act and therefore, he submits no case for interference with the judgment of the Tribunal is made out. Section 90(1)(a)(ii) came into effect

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

The appeals stand disposed of, accordingly

Bench: N.KUMAR,B.SREENIVASE GOWDA

14A of the Act categorically states no deduction shall be allowed in respect of expenditure incurred by the assessee in relation to income which does not form part of the total income under the Act and therefore, he submits no case for interference with the judgment of the Tribunal is made out. Section 90(1)(a)(ii) came into effect

SMT MUBEENA vs. STATE OF KARNATAKA

Bench: The Hon’Ble Mr. Justice Hemant Chandangoudar

3) SLJ 401 (SC). 6 iv) Arun Venkanna Navali -vs- Hubballi Dharwad Municipal Corporation & Ord. in WP Nos.108208- 108209/2016 and connected matters (DD 22.12.2021). v) Dr.Arun Kumar B C -vs- State of Karnataka and ors in WP No.9408/2020 and connected matters (DD 17.1.2022). vi) Srivatsa Developers -vs- The BDA and ors. in WP No.48258/2018 (DD 27.5.2022) vii) The State Government

RAMA vs. STATE OF KARNATAKA

Bench: ARAVIND KUMAR,B.A.PATIL

3 . THE TAHASILDHAR HIREKERUR TALUK HAVERI - 581 111. …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. PRABHULING K NAVADAGI, AG A/W SRI. V. SREENIDHI, AGA AND SMT. KAVITHA H.C, HCGP FOR R-1 & R-3 R-2 SERVED) THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO DECLARE THE PROVISIONS OF SECTIONS

P. D. PONNAPPA vs. STATE OF KARNATAKA

Bench: ARAVIND KUMAR,B.A.PATIL

3 . THE TAHASILDHAR HIREKERUR TALUK HAVERI - 581 111. …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. PRABHULING K NAVADAGI, AG A/W SRI. V. SREENIDHI, AGA AND SMT. KAVITHA H.C, HCGP FOR R-1 & R-3 R-2 SERVED) THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO DECLARE THE PROVISIONS OF SECTIONS

SRI. GURUPRASAD vs. GOVERNMENT OF KARNATAKA

Bench: ARAVIND KUMAR,B.A.PATIL

3 . THE TAHASILDHAR HIREKERUR TALUK HAVERI - 581 111. …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. PRABHULING K NAVADAGI, AG A/W SRI. V. SREENIDHI, AGA AND SMT. KAVITHA H.C, HCGP FOR R-1 & R-3 R-2 SERVED) THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO DECLARE THE PROVISIONS OF SECTIONS

RAJAPPA vs. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA

Bench: ARAVIND KUMAR,B.A.PATIL

3 . THE TAHASILDHAR HIREKERUR TALUK HAVERI - 581 111. …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. PRABHULING K NAVADAGI, AG A/W SRI. V. SREENIDHI, AGA AND SMT. KAVITHA H.C, HCGP FOR R-1 & R-3 R-2 SERVED) THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO DECLARE THE PROVISIONS OF SECTIONS