THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX vs. DR. PRADEEP KUMAR

Bench: RAVI MALIMATH,N.KUMAR

Section 92-C of the Income Tax Act, 1961? (d) Whether tribunal is justified in rejecting comparable cases adopted by transfer pricing officer for purpose of determination of arms length price and whether the rejection of such comparables by the tribunal is sustainable in law?”. 3. The learned Tribunal, after discussing the rival contentions of both the Appellants-Revenue

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 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

COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX vs. SHRI. VIKRAM REDDY

In the result, the fifth substantial question of

Bench: ALOK ARADHE,R. NATARAJ

156 ITR 509 (SC), WORKMEN OF ASSOCIATED RUBBER INDSUTRY LTD. VS. ASSOCIATED RUBBER INDSUTRY LTD AND ANOTHER, 157 ITR 77 (SC) AND KILLICK NIXON LTD VS. DCIT, (2012) 81 CCH 0066 MUM HC. 8. On the other hand, learned counsel for the assessee submitted that transfer of shares by the assessee in favour of the firm viz., BVRE during

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

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

In the result, the appeals are partly allowed

Bench: B.MANOHAR,DILIP B.BHOSALE

156/- spent on modification of building, a sum of Rs.3,60,694/- spent on corporate office repairs and Rs.21,485/-spent on purchase of paintings is a revenue expenditure and no depreciation is allowable over the same contrary to the judgment of the Apex Court in 49 ITR 160? A-6. Whether the Tribunal was correct in holding that

THE PR COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX vs. M/S ACUSIS SOFTWARE INDIA

Bench: S.SUJATHA,VINEET KOTHARI

Section 10A provides that Date of Judgment 05-07-2018, ITA No.372/2017 The Pr. Commissioner of Income-tax, CIT[A] & another Vs. M/s. Acusis Software India Pvt. Ltd., 4/10 such expenses are to be reduced only from the export turnover?” 4. Learned Counsel for the Appellants-Revenue does not press substantial question No.2. 5. Submission is taken on record. Regarding

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

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

COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-III vs. M/S TRILOGY E-BUSINESS

Bench: S.SUJATHA,VINEET KOTHARI

SECTION 260-A OF INCOME TAX ACT 1961, ARISING OUT OF ORDER DATED 23.11.2012, PASSED IN ITA No.1054/BANG/2011, FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2007-08, ANNEXURE-A, PRAYING TO: Date of Judgment 10-07-2018, ITA No.171/2013 Commissioner of Income Tax-III & Another Vs. M/s. Trilogy E-Business Software India Private Ltd., 2/14 i.] FORMULATE THE SUBSTANTIAL QUESTIONS OF LAW STATED

COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-III vs. M/S MERCEDES-BENZ

Bench: S.SUJATHA,VINEET KOTHARI

156 (BANG)} • Gem Plus Jewellery India Limited V. CIT (330 ITR 175) (Bom.) xxx xxx xxx 6. We have heard the learned DR present. The Tribunal has remitted the entire matter to the Assessing Officer/TPO by following the decision of the Bangalore Bench of the Tribunal in the case of M/s Insilica Semiconductors India Pvt. Ltd. V. ITO, Ward

R JANARDHANA BABU vs. THE MANAGING DIRECTOR

Accordingly, the writ petitions are allowed

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

156. Nirupama Prasad, d/o E.V Raghava Rao, aged about 56 years, Working as pharma Assistant, Glaxosmithkline Pharmaceuticals Limited, Devanahalli Road, Off Old Madras Road, Bangalore-560049 157. Sherin Achuthan Kutty, d/o M K Ramadas, aged about 56 years, Glaxosmithkline Pharmaceuticals Limited, Devanahalli Road, Off Old Madras Road, Bangalore-560049 158. Saraswathi R Maiya d/o H V Anathaswamy, aged about

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

ACE MANUFACTURING SYSTEMS LIMITED vs. THE ADDL. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX

Appeal stands dismissed

Bench: ARAVIND KUMAR,MOHAN M. SHANTANAGOUDAR

Section 80IB (3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 from the Assessment Year 1996-97 i.e., till 2005-06. 11. Said submissions were opposed by Sri.K.V.Aravind, learned panel Advocate appearing for Income Tax contending that production of three (3) 11 machines by the assessee in the Financial Year 1994- 95 was on commercial basis. Inasmuch as, all the three

SMT ERAMMA vs. THE COMMISSIONER

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

SECTION 19(1) OF THE BDA ACT I.E., ANNEX-P, IN SO FAR AS IT RELATES TO THE PROPERTIES OF THE PETITIONER IN SY.NO.30/6 & 30/7, K. NARAYANAPURA VILLAGE, K.R. PURAM HOBLI, BANGALORE SOUTH TALUK, MEASURING 22 GUNTAS AND 26 GUNTAS RESPECTIVELY. IN W.P.NO.55081/2014: BETWEEN: MR N. R. VENKATESHMURTHY S/O SRI. RAMAKRISHNAPPA, AGED ABOUT 45 YEARS, R/AT HOUSE NO.5

SMT. P. DHANALAKSHMAMMA vs. THE COMMISSIONER

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

SECTION 19(1) OF THE BDA ACT I.E., ANNEX-P, IN SO FAR AS IT RELATES TO THE PROPERTIES OF THE PETITIONER IN SY.NO.30/6 & 30/7, K. NARAYANAPURA VILLAGE, K.R. PURAM HOBLI, BANGALORE SOUTH TALUK, MEASURING 22 GUNTAS AND 26 GUNTAS RESPECTIVELY. IN W.P.NO.55081/2014: BETWEEN: MR N. R. VENKATESHMURTHY S/O SRI. RAMAKRISHNAPPA, AGED ABOUT 45 YEARS, R/AT HOUSE NO.5

SMT SHARADA S SHETTY vs. 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

SECTION 19(1) OF THE BDA ACT I.E., ANNEX-P, IN SO FAR AS IT RELATES TO THE PROPERTIES OF THE PETITIONER IN SY.NO.30/6 & 30/7, K. NARAYANAPURA VILLAGE, K.R. PURAM HOBLI, BANGALORE SOUTH TALUK, MEASURING 22 GUNTAS AND 26 GUNTAS RESPECTIVELY. IN W.P.NO.55081/2014: BETWEEN: MR N. R. VENKATESHMURTHY S/O SRI. RAMAKRISHNAPPA, AGED ABOUT 45 YEARS, R/AT HOUSE NO.5

SRI H M KUMAR vs. BENGALURU DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY

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

SECTION 19(1) OF THE BDA ACT I.E., ANNEX-P, IN SO FAR AS IT RELATES TO THE PROPERTIES OF THE PETITIONER IN SY.NO.30/6 & 30/7, K. NARAYANAPURA VILLAGE, K.R. PURAM HOBLI, BANGALORE SOUTH TALUK, MEASURING 22 GUNTAS AND 26 GUNTAS RESPECTIVELY. IN W.P.NO.55081/2014: BETWEEN: MR N. R. VENKATESHMURTHY S/O SRI. RAMAKRISHNAPPA, AGED ABOUT 45 YEARS, R/AT HOUSE NO.5