G RAMACHAR vs. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA

Bench: ABHAY SHREENIWAS OKA (CJ),B.V.NAGARATHNA

114(c) sub-rule (2) Paras (a) and (h) of Income-tax Rules, 1962; Section 192 A, B and C of Karnataka Land Revenue Act, 1964. -: 9 :- 5. The impugned Circular is therefore, to be enforced in order to prohibit certain transactions from being registered as they violate the aforesaid laws. The Circular is a guideline to the Sub Registrars

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

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

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

M/S T T K PRESTIGE LTD vs. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX

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

114[e] of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 would be that the AO has looked into all the aspects of the matter made available in the return filed and the documents supplied along with the return. If an opinion is framed by the AO concluding the assessment order under section 143[3] of the Act, reopening the same without there

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

114) upholding thai view held as under: “3,The respondent is owning Visukhcipatnam Steel Project. For the purpose of steel project. it allotted dfferent works to con tractors, The respondent undertook to supplii sophisticate mczchirtery to the contractors for the purpose of being used in execution of the conracred works and received charges for the same. The appellant Here itulicised

THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX vs. M/S DELMIA SOLUTIONS PVT LTD.,

Bench: S.SUJATHA,VINEET KOTHARI

Pricing Officer regarding functions and profitability of the comparables and the Date of Judgment 12-07-2018, ITA No.342/2013 The Commissioner of Income Tax & another Vs. M/s Delmia Solutions Pvt. Ltd., 4/15 assessee company are similar and recorded a perverse finding? 3. Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law the Tribunal was justified

THE PR. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIT(A) vs. M/S IDS SOFTWARE SOLUTIONS INDIA PVT. LTD.,

Bench: S.SUJATHA,VINEET KOTHARI

section 10A of the Act by following the decision of this Hon’ble Court even when the Hon’ble Supreme Court has not decided the issue in SLP disposed of by the Supreme Court wherein the Supreme Court has only said where it has to be shown in written of income? 3. Whether on the facts and in the circumstances

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

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

Bench: ALOK ARADHE,H.T. NARENDRA PRASAD

transferred to the trust at the face value and the employees of the assessee were allowed to exercise the option to buy the shares within the time prescribed under the scheme subject to terms and conditions mentioned therein. The assessee claimed the difference of market price and allotment price as a discount and claimed the same as an expenditure under

GSTAAD HOTEL PVT LTD vs. THE BRUHAT BENGALURU MAHANAGARA PALIKE

Bench: ASHOK B HINCHIGERI

114-A of the Karnataka Municipal Corporations Act, 1976 flcMC Act’, for short) provides for the re-opening of the case of recording of the transfer of title by the Commissioner but only within three years. In the instant case, the khata came to be mutated In favour of the petitioners on 01.04.2006. 3. The learned counsel submits that

THE PR. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIT (A) vs. M/S. CAPCO IT SERVICES PVT LTD

Bench: S.SUJATHA,VINEET KOTHARI

Transfer Pricing Officer has rightly chosen the same considering its functions which are similar to assessee’s and has satisfied all the required tests and without doing an FAR analysis of the taxpayer with those other cases? Date of Judgment 05-07-2018 I.T.A.No.481/2017 The Pr. Commissioner of Income-Tax, CIT (A) & Anr. Vs. M/s. Capco IT Services

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

price of forest produce was within the legislative competence of the State under Entry 54 of List-II and constitutionally valid. Although the unamended section 98A(1) refers to the levy of a tax, the impost is more in the nature of a fee. The amount collected by way of forest development tax is earmarked for development and regeneration

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

price of forest produce was within the legislative competence of the State under Entry 54 of List-II and constitutionally valid. Although the unamended section 98A(1) refers to the levy of a tax, the impost is more in the nature of a fee. The amount collected by way of forest development tax is earmarked for development and regeneration

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

price of forest produce was within the legislative competence of the State under Entry 54 of List-II and constitutionally valid. Although the unamended section 98A(1) refers to the levy of a tax, the impost is more in the nature of a fee. The amount collected by way of forest development tax is earmarked for development and regeneration

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

price of forest produce was within the legislative competence of the State under Entry 54 of List-II and constitutionally valid. Although the unamended section 98A(1) refers to the levy of a tax, the impost is more in the nature of a fee. The amount collected by way of forest development tax is earmarked for development and regeneration

SATHVAHANA ISPAT LIMITED vs. STATE OF KARNATAKA

In the result, these petitions must succeed

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

price of forest produce was within the legislative competence of the State under Entry 54 of List-II and constitutionally valid. Although the unamended section 98A(1) refers to the levy of a tax, the impost is more in the nature of a fee. The amount collected by way of forest development tax is earmarked for development and regeneration

M/S LAKSHMINARAYANA MINING COMPANY vs. STATE OF KARNATAKA

In the result, these petitions must succeed

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

price of forest produce was within the legislative competence of the State under Entry 54 of List-II and constitutionally valid. Although the unamended section 98A(1) refers to the levy of a tax, the impost is more in the nature of a fee. The amount collected by way of forest development tax is earmarked for development and regeneration

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

price of forest produce was within the legislative competence of the State under Entry 54 of List-II and constitutionally valid. Although the unamended section 98A(1) refers to the levy of a tax, the impost is more in the nature of a fee. The amount collected by way of forest development tax is earmarked for development and regeneration

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

price of forest produce was within the legislative competence of the State under Entry 54 of List-II and constitutionally valid. Although the unamended section 98A(1) refers to the levy of a tax, the impost is more in the nature of a fee. The amount collected by way of forest development tax is earmarked for development and regeneration