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

The appeals stand disposed of, accordingly

Bench: N.KUMAR,B.SREENIVASE GOWDA

Section 145A of the Income- tax Act which was inserted with effect from assessment year 1999-2000. The said provision states that the valuation of stock should include the amount of any tax duty, cess or fee - 94 - actually paid or incurred to bring the goods to its present location and condition. The Department has followed a consistent stand

THE PR. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX vs. M/S GOLDMAN SACHS SERVICES PVT LTD

Bench: The Hon'Ble Mr. Justice V. Srishananda Civil Revision Petition No.29/2019 Between

price realized by sale of flats.  The further observation of civil court that the observation of arbitrator about the firm being not impleaded in proceedings is questioned by Petitioner is unsustainable in law. There is no dispute between the firm and the partners. A firm is only a compendious name of all the partners. When all the partners

XIAOMI TECHNOLOGY INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX

In the result, I pass the following:

Bench: The Hon'Ble Mr.Justice S.R.Krishna Kumar

transfer pricing adjustment. Pursuant to the said order, the Assessing Officer issued a Notice under Section 142(1) of the I.T.Act for the Assessment Year 2018-19 inter alia calling upon the petitioner to show cause, as to why payment of royalty to the foreign entity i.e., Qualcomm and Beijing Xiaomi Mobile should not be disallowed. On 10.08.2022, petitioner submitted

L. VENKATARAMANA RAJU vs. UNION OF INDIA

Bench: The Hon'Ble Mr.Justice S.R.Krishna Kumar

Price Advisory Committee which has been approved by the Board in its 356th meeting held on 20.09.2018, that the compensation shall be awarded at Rs.50 Lakhs per acre on consent and if the land owners are not agreeable for such consent awards, the award shall be made in accordance with law. The Board has filed objections to the said application

M/S SRI BALAJI CORPORATE SERVICES vs. UNION OF INDIA MINISTRY OF FINANCE

Bench: The Hon'Ble Mr.Justice S.R.Krishna Kumar

Price Advisory Committee which has been approved by the Board in its 356th meeting held on 20.09.2018, that the compensation shall be awarded at Rs.50 Lakhs per acre on consent and if the land owners are not agreeable for such consent awards, the award shall be made in accordance with law. The Board has filed objections to the said application

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

6 2nd Floor, TTMC A Block, BMTC Complex, K.H.Road, Shantinagar, Bangalore 560 001. …RESPONDENTS (By Shri Jeevan J Neeralgi, Advocate for Respondent Nos. 1and 2; Shri Madhusudhan R Naik, Advocate General for Shri S.V.Giri Kumar, Additional Government Advocate for Respondent Nos. 3 and 4) This Writ Petition filed under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India praying

MR. BINEESH KODIYERI vs. DIRECTORATE OF ENFORCEMENT

Bench: The Hon’Ble Mr. Justice Suraj Govindaraj Writ Petition No. 13261 Of 2020 (Gm-Res) Between: Mr. Bineesh Kodiyeri S/O Mr. Kodiyeri Balakrishnan Aged About 37 Years Kootamvilla Lane, Maruthankuzhi Thiruvananthapuram District Kerala State – 695013

price of which exceeds on e crore rupees; or (d) Fraudulently availing of or attempt to avail of drawback or any exemption from duty provided under this Act, if the amount of drawback or exemption from duty exceeds fifty lakh rupees. WP No. 13261 of 2020 65 (7) Save as otherwise provided in sub-section (6), all other offences under

SMT. M R PRABHAVATHY vs. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX

Bench: The Hon’Ble Mr. Justice K.Natarajan Election Petition No.1 Of 2019 Connected With Election Petition No.2 Of 2019

VIII and not admitted and paragraph No.9 is partly admitted in respect of securing the votes by the respondent and contended that they are valid votes and further denied paragraph Nos. XI, XII, XIII as false and contended that he has not committed any corrupt practice and he has complied all the provision and rules and further denied the contentions

M/S INDUS TOWERS LTD vs. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF COMMERCIAL TAXES

In the result, we pass the following order:

Bench: RAVI MALIMATH,N.KUMAR

viii if’ pettlontr. i ould b ‘pecifinillq said that ii c right te t sc Cit gxJs I as 1 cc n tT(fllstPrrPC 1 hc the rjt.’lngoflg” I) tj tt’lP”W?L onq’nn n on 1 that ,.Ycr!. “Wr,t lab ‘r’ttun a?t’t. itt’ t ‘SAl 4 ‘ tu. (on.h

IRON ORE END USERS ASSOCIATION vs. STATE OF KARNATAKA

In the result, these petitions must succeed

Bench: ABHAY SHREENIWAS OKA (CJ),P.S.DINESH KUMAR

6. By a notification dated August 16, 2008, the State Government brought the ‘holders of mines and quarries situated in forest area’ as ‘body’ under the ambit of Section 98-A(1) of the Act, requiring them to pay forest development tax. In furtherance thereof, instructions were issued to the Principal Chief Conservator of Forests in Karnataka to recover forest

HINDUSTAN CALCINED METALS PRIVATE LIMITED vs. STATE OF KARNATAKA

In the result, these petitions must succeed

Bench: ABHAY SHREENIWAS OKA (CJ),P.S.DINESH KUMAR

6. By a notification dated August 16, 2008, the State Government brought the ‘holders of mines and quarries situated in forest area’ as ‘body’ under the ambit of Section 98-A(1) of the Act, requiring them to pay forest development tax. In furtherance thereof, instructions were issued to the Principal Chief Conservator of Forests in Karnataka to recover forest

M/S PADMAVATHI FERROUS LTD vs. GOVERNMENT OF KARNATAKA

In the result, these petitions must succeed

Bench: ABHAY SHREENIWAS OKA (CJ),P.S.DINESH KUMAR

6. By a notification dated August 16, 2008, the State Government brought the ‘holders of mines and quarries situated in forest area’ as ‘body’ under the ambit of Section 98-A(1) of the Act, requiring them to pay forest development tax. In furtherance thereof, instructions were issued to the Principal Chief Conservator of Forests in Karnataka to recover forest

M/S. HOTHUR TRADERS vs. STATE OF KARNATAKA

In the result, these petitions must succeed

Bench: ABHAY SHREENIWAS OKA (CJ),P.S.DINESH KUMAR

6. By a notification dated August 16, 2008, the State Government brought the ‘holders of mines and quarries situated in forest area’ as ‘body’ under the ambit of Section 98-A(1) of the Act, requiring them to pay forest development tax. In furtherance thereof, instructions were issued to the Principal Chief Conservator of Forests in Karnataka to recover forest

M/S. BMM ISPAT LTD vs. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA

In the result, these petitions must succeed

Bench: ABHAY SHREENIWAS OKA (CJ),P.S.DINESH KUMAR

6. By a notification dated August 16, 2008, the State Government brought the ‘holders of mines and quarries situated in forest area’ as ‘body’ under the ambit of Section 98-A(1) of the Act, requiring them to pay forest development tax. In furtherance thereof, instructions were issued to the Principal Chief Conservator of Forests in Karnataka to recover forest

M/S ELECTROTHERM (INDIA)LTD vs. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA

In the result, these petitions must succeed

Bench: ABHAY SHREENIWAS OKA (CJ),P.S.DINESH KUMAR

6. By a notification dated August 16, 2008, the State Government brought the ‘holders of mines and quarries situated in forest area’ as ‘body’ under the ambit of Section 98-A(1) of the Act, requiring them to pay forest development tax. In furtherance thereof, instructions were issued to the Principal Chief Conservator of Forests in Karnataka to recover forest

M/S JEEVAKA INDUSTRIES PRIVATE LIMITED vs. STATE OF KARNATAKA

In the result, these petitions must succeed

Bench: ABHAY SHREENIWAS OKA (CJ),P.S.DINESH KUMAR

6. By a notification dated August 16, 2008, the State Government brought the ‘holders of mines and quarries situated in forest area’ as ‘body’ under the ambit of Section 98-A(1) of the Act, requiring them to pay forest development tax. In furtherance thereof, instructions were issued to the Principal Chief Conservator of Forests in Karnataka to recover forest

M/S HARE KRISHNA METALICS PVT LTD vs. STATE OF KARNATAKA

In the result, these petitions must succeed

Bench: ABHAY SHREENIWAS OKA (CJ),P.S.DINESH KUMAR

6. By a notification dated August 16, 2008, the State Government brought the ‘holders of mines and quarries situated in forest area’ as ‘body’ under the ambit of Section 98-A(1) of the Act, requiring them to pay forest development tax. In furtherance thereof, instructions were issued to the Principal Chief Conservator of Forests in Karnataka to recover forest

M/S. SRI SHIV SHAKTI STEEL & ALLOYS vs. STATE OF KARNATAKA

In the result, these petitions must succeed

Bench: ABHAY SHREENIWAS OKA (CJ),P.S.DINESH KUMAR

6. By a notification dated August 16, 2008, the State Government brought the ‘holders of mines and quarries situated in forest area’ as ‘body’ under the ambit of Section 98-A(1) of the Act, requiring them to pay forest development tax. In furtherance thereof, instructions were issued to the Principal Chief Conservator of Forests in Karnataka to recover forest