THE HANUMAN TRANSPORT CO PVT LTD vs. THE REGIONAL TRANSPORT AUTHORITY

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

40 YEARS, LAKSHMI EXPRESS MANDARTHI, KUNDAPUR TALUK UDUPI DISTRICT-576203 ...PETITIONERS (BY SRI S.VIJAYA SHANKAR, SENIOR ADV. FOR SRI M.E.NAGESH, ADV.) AND : 1. THE REGIONAL TRANSPORT AUTHORITY, UDUPI, RAJATHADRI, MANIPAL, UDUPI DISTRICT-576104, BY ITS SECRETARY 2. THE SECRETARY REGIONAL TRANSPORT AUTHORITY, - 4 - RAJATHADRI, MANIPAL, UDUPI-576104 3. THE MANAGING DIRECTOR KSRTC, BENGALURU-560027, MANGALURU DIVISION, MANGALURU-575004 …RESPONDENTS

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

The appeals are dismissed

Bench: SATISH CHANDRA SHARMA,SURAJ GOVINDARAJ

68 17.6. The decisions relied upon by Sri. Aravind, learned Senior Panel counsel in Shree Choudhary Transport Company’s case and Smt. J.Rama’s case (supra) are not applicable to the present facts and circumstances since, in these cases, the vehicles were used for transport of goods and or passengers, and the applicability of Section

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

The appeals stand disposed of, accordingly

Bench: N.KUMAR,B.SREENIVASE GOWDA

68. What follows is, if the provisions contained in Section 90 is more beneficial to the assessee as compared to the - 85 - terms in the agreement by India with the Government of any country outside India then, notwithstanding such agreement, the provisions of the Act to the extent they are beneficial to that assesseee apply. The benefit claimed

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

The appeals stand disposed of, accordingly

Bench: N.KUMAR,B.SREENIVASE GOWDA

68. What follows is, if the provisions contained in Section 90 is more beneficial to the assessee as compared to the - 85 - terms in the agreement by India with the Government of any country outside India then, notwithstanding such agreement, the provisions of the Act to the extent they are beneficial to that assesseee apply. The benefit claimed

COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX vs. S.PARVATHI MADHAVA

The appeals are allowed

Bench: N.KUMAR,H.S.KEMPANNA

40,00,000/-. Consequently, a notice under Section 153(A) of the Act was issued to the assessee on 02.04.2004 asking him to file a return. The said notice under Section 153(A) of the Act was issued to the assessee for each of the six assessment years i.e., 1998-99 to 2003- 04. In view

COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX vs. S.MADHAVA (HUF)

The appeals are allowed

Bench: N.KUMAR,H.S.KEMPANNA

40,00,000/-. Consequently, a notice under Section 153(A) of the Act was issued to the assessee on 02.04.2004 asking him to file a return. The said notice under Section 153(A) of the Act was issued to the assessee for each of the six assessment years i.e., 1998-99 to 2003- 04. In view

COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX vs. S.MADHAVA (HUF)

The appeals are allowed

Bench: N.KUMAR,H.S.KEMPANNA

40,00,000/-. Consequently, a notice under Section 153(A) of the Act was issued to the assessee on 02.04.2004 asking him to file a return. The said notice under Section 153(A) of the Act was issued to the assessee for each of the six assessment years i.e., 1998-99 to 2003- 04. In view

COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX vs. S.MADHAVA, M/S BELLARY STEEL ROLING MILLS,

The appeals are allowed

Bench: N.KUMAR,H.S.KEMPANNA

40,00,000/-. Consequently, a notice under Section 153(A) of the Act was issued to the assessee on 02.04.2004 asking him to file a return. The said notice under Section 153(A) of the Act was issued to the assessee for each of the six assessment years i.e., 1998-99 to 2003- 04. In view

COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX vs. S.MADHAVA, M/S BELLARY STEEL ROLING MILLS,

The appeals are allowed

Bench: N.KUMAR,H.S.KEMPANNA

40,00,000/-. Consequently, a notice under Section 153(A) of the Act was issued to the assessee on 02.04.2004 asking him to file a return. The said notice under Section 153(A) of the Act was issued to the assessee for each of the six assessment years i.e., 1998-99 to 2003- 04. In view

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

Bench: S.SUJATHA,VINEET KOTHARI

40. He submitted that though the Tribunal had agreed with the Assessee that the said buy-back of shares and payments made by the Indian Company could not be treated as ‘Dividend’ under Section 2(22)(d) of the Act, towards the end of para 6 of the impugned Order of the Tribunal, the learned Tribunal had clearly held

THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME - TAX vs. M/S BOSCH LTD.,

The appeal is dismissed as devoid of

Bench: S.SUJATHA,VINEET KOTHARI

40 YEARS, RESIDENT OF 4TH MAIN, 8TH ‘B’ CROSS, NEW THIPPASANDRA, HAL III STAGE, BANGALORE – 560 075. 4. SRI R.K. ANJALI, LECTURER, C/O. DR. VISHWANATH M.S., AGED ABOUT 38 YEARS, RESIDENT OF 4TH MAIN, 8TH ‘B’ CROSS, NEW THIPPASANDRA, HAL III STAGE, BANGALORE – 560 075. 5. R.K. INDIRA, D/O. H. RUDRAPPA, AGED ABOUT 36 YEARS, 3 6. R.K. VIDYAKALA

THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX vs. M/S RAJMAHAL SILKS

The appeal is disposed of

Bench: ALOK ARADHE,H.T. NARENDRA PRASAD

68,815/- expenses claimed towards transportation charges were not allowable despite the transporters adducing evidence that they did not execute these transactions and the 3 payments received were only book entries which evidence was not taken into consideration in the proper perspective and consequently recorded a perverse finding? (ii) Whether the Tribunal was correct in holding that the disallowance

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

40 50. Section 6-B of the Act is no doubt introduced by way of amendment to the Act and by the substitution of the earlier Section 6-B, which had in the name of turnover tax as per the State Act No.5/2002 with effect from 1.4.2002. 51. This levy is a transitional levy, in the sense

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

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, he allowed deduction in respect of bio-fertilizers, composite unit

SRI S S JYOTHI PRAKASH vs. THE ADDL COMMISSIONER

The appeal is allowed accordingly

Bench: JAYANT PATEL,B.SREENIVASE GOWDA

68 of the Act and with regard to the addition under Section 69 of the Act, the Tribunal found that the property in question was valued by the Departmental valuer, approved valuer of the assessee and also District Registrar/Appellate Authority for the stamp duty purpose and hence the Tribunal decided the value of the property at the value which

SATISH N vs. STATE OF KARNATAKA

Bench: The Hon’Ble Mr. Justice Raghvendra S. Chauhan

40. In order to fully understand the scope and ambit of Section 93 of the Act, it is essential to briefly refer to the architectural structure of the Act. Section 2 (7) of the Act defines the term "Contract Carriage". Contract Carriage includes motor cabs. Taxis are motor cabs. Section 74 of the Act grants permits

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX vs. M/S GULBARGA ELECTRICITY SUPPLY COMPANY LTD.

Accordingly, appeal of Revenue is dismissed

Bench: B.VEERAPPA,VINEET KOTHARI

40(a)(ia), 194 C and 194J and after following the decision of the co-ordinate bench of the Tribunal in identical circumstances in the case of Bangalore Electricity Supply Company vs. ITO (TDS) in ITA No.530 to 535/Bang/2011 and other cases, proceeded to dismiss the Revenue’s appeal, upholding the order passed by the CIT (Appeals) insofar

PAWAN KUMAR MEHTA vs. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX

In the result, the substantial question of law Nos

Bench: ALOK ARADHE,HEMANT CHANDANGOUDAR

40,000/- was seized from the assessee and thereafter a statement of the assessee under Section 131 of the Act was recorded on 27.10.2010. The assessee filed return of income for the Assessment Year 2010-11 on 20.09.2010 and declared total income of Rs.79,443/-. Thereafter notice under Section 153A of the Act was issued. The assessee filed