THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX vs. M/S FOSROC CHEMICALS INDIA PVT LTD

The appeals are dismissed

Bench: B.V.NAGARATHNA,JAYANT PATEL

135/- to the AE was an independent international transaction which had to be analysed by applying CUP method prescribed by Rule 10B (1)(a) of the Act”? 5 Substantial questions of law in ITA No.470/2013 “1. Whether on the facts and in the circumstances and in law the Tribunal was correct is setting aside the determination

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

THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX vs. M/S GARNIWAL EXPORTS (P) LTD

Appeal is allowed

Bench: D.V.SHYLENDRA KUMAR,B.S.INDRAKALA

135 (Delhi)) wherein it was held that in the case of premium payment received on transferring export quotas, it does not involve any earnings of foreign exchange and does not result in profits attributable to an export activity for the purpose of Section 80HHC and no deduction under Section 80HHC can be claimed. This decision is also identical

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

Section 66 thereof created charge of service tax in regard to taxable services. Service Lax’ is defined in clause (34) of Set lion 65 to mean tax chargeable under the provLsioi is of that napler. 7’axable ceri’icc is dejrnea Iunder sub ‘‘larcsc’ Ib) 1 ½usc 4 1 [ 5j 0 n ° mc a an, srvkc provided tu. znrcr cilia

CHITTHARANJAN A DASANNACHARYA vs. THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-V

In the result, the appeal is allowed

Bench: ALOK ARADHE,H.T. NARENDRA PRASAD

price of shares and market value of shares on the date of exercise of 'income from short term capital 6 gains'. The claims for deduction under Section 54F was disallowed. The assessee thereupon approached the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) who by an order dated 31.10.2011 dismissed the appeal on merits. However, the interest levied under Section 234B

THE MANGALORE ELECTRICITY SUPPLY COMPANY LTD., vs. SRI A CHANDRASEKHAR

Bench: G.NARENDAR,P.N.DESAI

price fixed under any law, etc. 29. Deficiency of service is defined under Section 2(1)(g) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 in the following manner: “2. (1)(g) ‘deficiency’ means any fault, imperfection, shortcoming or inadequacy in the quality, nature and manner of performance which is required to be maintained by or under any law for the time

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

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

TRANSFER PRICING OFFICER AND ANOTHER’ [(2010) 320 ITR 565 [DELHI]. [e] ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX AND OTHERS vs. ICICI SECURITIES PRIMARY DEALERSHIP LTD. [2012] 348 ITR 299 (SC) [f] ‘COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX vs. I.A.E.C. (PUMPS) LTD.,’ [(1998) 150 CTR SC 126 - 14 - 6. Submissions of the learned Counsel for the Revenue: Learned Counsel Sri. K.V. Aravind appearing

THE PR. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX vs. M/S ARCOT R & D SOFTWARE PVT LTD

Bench: S.SUJATHA,VINEET KOTHARI

135, OLD AIRPORT ROAD KODIHALLI BENGALURU – 560 017 PAN:AADCA 4367L ... RESPONDENT THIS ITA IS FILED UNDER SEC.260-A OF INCOME TAX ACT 1961, ARISING OUT OF ORDER DATED:17.03.2017 PASSED IN ITA NO. 134/BANG/2014, FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR- 2009-2010 ANNEXURE -D, PRAYING TO: I. FORMULATE THE Date of Judgment 13-8-2018, ITA No.1012 /2017 The Pr. Commissioner

THE PR. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (4) vs. M/S CHAMUNDI WINERY AND DISTILLERY

Bench: S.SUJATHA,VINEET KOTHARI

transferred to the trust resulting in diversion of income at source. The Appellate Tribunal held that there was no diversion of income and that section 60 of the Income-tax Act, 1961, applied. On a reference, the High Court held that on assignment of 50 per cent. of the share of the assessee in the firm it became the income

PR. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX vs. M/S CHAMUNDI WINERY AND DISTILLERY

Bench: S.SUJATHA,VINEET KOTHARI

transferred to the trust resulting in diversion of income at source. The Appellate Tribunal held that there was no diversion of income and that section 60 of the Income-tax Act, 1961, applied. On a reference, the High Court held that on assignment of 50 per cent. of the share of the assessee in the firm it became the income

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

Section 33A of RP Act and 106 he has committed corrupt practice of bribery as contemplated under Sections 123(1)(A), 123(1)(B), 123(7), 123(7)(b), 123(vii)(d), 123(7)(h) and Section 123(8), 123(3), 3A and 123(6) of R.P. Act ? The petitioner in E.P. No.2/2019 has contended that respondent No.1 committed corrupt

THE PR COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX vs. M/S FAIR ISAAC INDIA SOFTWARE PVT.LTD.

Bench: S.SUJATHA,VINEET KOTHARI

135, OLD AIRPORT ROAD, KODIHALLY, BENGALURU-560017. PAN: AABCF 7670G. …RESPONDENT (RESPONDENT SERVED, BUT UNREPRESENTED) THIS INCOME TAX APPEAL IS FILED UNDER SECTION 260-A OF INCOME TAX ACT 1961, ARISING OUT OF ORDER DATED 08.09.2016 PASSED IN IT(TP)A No.24/BANG/2014, FOR Date of Judgment 06-08-2018, ITA No.368/2017 The Pr. Commissioner of Income-tax & Another

R JANARDHANA BABU vs. THE MANAGING DIRECTOR

Accordingly, the writ petitions are allowed

Bench: The Hon’Ble Mr. Justice B. Veerappa

135. A Deva Pushpam, d/o I M Arogyaswamy, aged about 59 years, Glaxosmithkline Pharmaceuticals Limited, Devanahalli Road, Off Old Madras Road, Bangalore-560049 136. Cecilia Raj, d/o A M Nathan, aged about 59 years, Glaxosmithkline 39 Pharmaceuticals Limited, Devanahalli Road, Off Old Madras Road, Bangalore-560049 137. Christina Damodaran, d/o Bob Joseph, aged about 59 years, Glaxosmithkline Pharmaceuticals Limited, Devanahalli

DR SYED ANWAR vs. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX

Appeal is allowed

Bench: P.S.DINESH KUMAR,T.G. SHIVASHANKARE GOWDA

price in between Rs.2 to 4 lakhs per acre. 13. Sri.Shankar contended that three owners of the lands viz., Rajappa, Venkataramachari and Hanumanthegowda, who had purportedly deposed before the Income Tax Authorities that they had received 'on-money', have filed their affidavits dated March 23, 2001, February 23, 2001 and March 23, 2001 respectively. We have perused the affidavits filed

SMT SHANTHAMMA vs. K S KRISHNA SINCE DEAD BY LRS

Bench: The Hon’Ble Mr.Justice Budihal R.B.

price of Rs.4.32 crores to the legal heirs of deceased defendant No.2 had alternatively ordered that the “C” schedule property be divided into distinct portion as per Annexure-B to the said order. However, while referring to the alternative relief, the Court has observed that in the event of failure to pay the balance amount before the date of actual

SMT. S. JALAJA vs. UNION OF INDIA

In the result, writ appeals are allowed

Bench: ALOK ARADHE,HEMANT CHANDANGOUDAR

section 107 (2) and Article 254 (2) is that when there is legislation covering the same ground both by 119 the Centre and by the Province, both of them being competent to enact the same, the law of the Centre should prevail over that of the State". "It is true, as already pointed out, that on a question under Article

N ASHOK vs. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA

Bench: The Hon’Ble Mr. Justice Aravind Kumar W.P. No.51929/2014 C/W W.P.Nos.42063/2012, 30494/2013, 42671/2013, 638/2014, 797/2014, 1089/2014, 3211/2014, 3389/2014, 6180/2014, 10356/2014, 12014/2014, 12015/2014, 13043/2014, 13045/2014, 13206/2014, 13207/2014, 13398/2014, 13774/2014, 14149/2014, 14161/2014, 14494/2014, 14502/2014, 14521/2014, 14689/2014, 16646/2014, 17051/2014, 17594/2014, 19729/2014, 21158/2014, 23897/2014, 28861/2014, 30731/2014, 31723/2014, 33774/2014, 33777/2014, 34084/2014, 34259/2014, 34272/2014, 34391/2014, 35204/2014, 35243/2014, 35247/2014, 35305/2014, 35609/2014, 36164/2014, 36166/2014, 36489/2014, 36525/2014, 36971/2014, 37446/2014, 38055/2014, 38463/2014, 38471/2014, 38472/2014, 38661/2014, 38753/2014, 39383/2014, 39633/2014, 39832/2014, 40204/2014, 40379/2014, 41394/2014, 41422/2014, 41427/2014, 41428/2014, 41858/2014, 43815/2014, 43963/2014, 44306/2014, 44527/2014, 44742/2014, 44835/2014, 45486/2014, 46766/2014, 47103/2014, 47105/2014, 47106/2014, 47107/2014, 47608/2014, 47731/2014, 47821/2014, 47860/2014, 47913/2014, 48577/2014, 48880/2014, 49567/2014, 50260/2014, 50533/2014, 51294/2014, 51930/2014, 51931/2014, 51932/2014, 52760/2014, 53854/2014, 54059/2014, 54083/2014, 54236/2014

135 DR.B.R.AMBEDKAR VEEDHI, BANGALORE-560 001 2. BANGALORE DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY KUMARA PARK WEST, BANGALORE-560 020 REP. BY ITS COMMISSIONER 3. THE SPECIAL LAND ACQUISITION OFFICER BANGALORE DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY, KUMARA PARK WEST, BANGALORE - 560 020. …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. G.V. SHASHIKUMAR, AGA FOR R1; SRI. NARENDRA GOWDA, ADVOCATE FOR R2 & R3; SRI. A.M. VIJAY, ADVOCATE FOR R2; SRI. D.N. NANJUNDA REDDY