THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX vs. HUBLI ELECTRIC SUPPLY COMPANY LTD

In the result, these appeals fail and accordingly stand

Bench: S.ABDUL NAZEER,P.S.DINESH KUMAR

201(1) of the Act, if the assessee satisfied the Revenue that the payee had paid the taxes and further directing the ITO (TDS) to workout the interest from the due date of remittance of TDS till the date of filing of returns. Similarly, the ITAT also fell in an error in dismissing the appeals filed by the Revenue. Accordingly

PR.COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX vs. M/S GALAX E SOLUTIONS INDIA PVT LTD

The appeal is disposed of with liberty as prayed for by the learned

Bench: S.G.PANDIT,C.M. POONACHA

Section 260-A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (for short, ‘the Act’) questioning the correctness and legality of order dated 21.10.2020 passed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, ‘B’ Bench, Bengaluru (for short, ‘Appellate Authority’) in IT(TP)A.No.184/Bang/2016 for the assessment year 2011-12. 3. This Court, admitted the appeal on 04.7.2023 to consider the following substantial

THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX vs. M/S URBAN LADDER HOME DECOR SOLUTIONS PVT LTD

Appeals are dismissed

Bench: V KAMESWAR RAO,S RACHAIAH

201(1A)(23 months) 59,80,804 Total 3,19,84,310 Issue demand notice and challan accordingly.” 6. Before noting the submissions made by the learned counsel for the parties, it is necessary to state in brief the nature of payments made to the aforesaid three entities. (a) Payments made to Facebook, Ireland: The assessee-Company uses Facebook platform

M/S ALTAIR ENGINEERING INDIA PVT LTD vs. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX

Bench: S.SUJATHA,VINEET KOTHARI

Transfer Pricing is disposed off. 08. The second issue raised by the assessee is that disallowance of assessee's claim of `.1,52,58,201/- made u/s.10A is not justified. The very same issue was considered in assessee's own case for assessment year 2005-06 by ITAT, 'B' Bench, Bangalore, through their order dated.21.01.2011 in ITA.762/Bang/2010. The very same

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

THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX vs. M/S MANIPAL HEALTH SYSTEMS PVT LTD

Appeals are partly allowed to the extent indicated

Bench: S.SUJATHA,VINEET SARAN

201(A) of the Act. As far as the issue of the rent, the AO noticed that the assessee – company has entered into a memorandum of agreement with Medical Relief Society(MRS) of South Canara(registered). After examining the said memorandum of agreements, AO held that the assessee-company was required to deduct TDS on rent in cash of Rs.5

THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX vs. M/S MANIPAL HEALTH SYSTEMS

Appeals are partly allowed to the extent indicated

Bench: S.SUJATHA,VINEET SARAN

201(A) of the Act. As far as the issue of the rent, the AO noticed that the assessee – company has entered into a memorandum of agreement with Medical Relief Society(MRS) of South Canara(registered). After examining the said memorandum of agreements, AO held that the assessee-company was required to deduct TDS on rent in cash of Rs.5

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

Bench: S.SUJATHA,VINEET KOTHARI

transfer of the reserves and surplus to the holding company by avoiding the payment of tax and therefore it will be treated as a colourable device. There are two aspects in this transaction- (i) It is a simple and plain transaction of buy back of shares without having any dispute of price then the same is beyond the scope

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

transfer of right to use the machinery in tavour of the contractors and in the cthse zce of satisfqinq the essential requirement cf’ section 5-E of the Act, i. a, trans/dr of right to use machinery, the hire charges cOileCtea. 01] LOS rC5/Jofldent j?om the contracts were not exigthle to sales tax. On a careful reading and analysi

PR. COMMISISONER OF INCOME TAX - 3, vs. M/S INFINEON TECHNOLOGIES INDIA PVT. LTD.,

The appeal is disposed of with liberty as prayed for by the learned

Bench: S.G.PANDIT,C.M. POONACHA

Transfer Pricing Officer?" 4. "Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal is right in allowing working capital adjustment without an upper limit would result into abnormal adjustment and would make the profit earned within the permitted range even when if no operating profit is earned and the upper limit of working capital adjustment should

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

Accordingly, appeal of Revenue is dismissed

Bench: B.VEERAPPA,VINEET KOTHARI

201(1) of the Act in respect of payments for transmission charges and SLDC 6 charges under Section 194J of the Act and also in respect of payments towards composite contracts for setting up electric sub-station under Section 194C of the Act. 7. The assessment was completed by an order under Section

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

201 REPRESENTED BY Mr.MALLANAGOUDA ...PETITIONER (BY SHRI.M.V.SUNDER RAMAN, ADVOCATE ALONG WITH SHRI.K.ARUN KUMAR, ADVOCATE) AND: 1. STATE OF KARNATAKA REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY DEPARTMENT OF PARLIAMENTARY AFFAIRS VIDHANA SOUDHA, Dr.AMBEDKAR VEEDHI BANGALORE–560 001 2. STATE OF KARNATAKA REPRESENTED BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY DEPARTMENT OF FOREST ECOLOGY AND ENVIRONMENT, M.S.BUILDING Dr.AMBEDKAR VEEDHI BANGALORE-560 001 3. THE PRINCIPAL CHIEF CONSERVATOR

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

201 REPRESENTED BY Mr.MALLANAGOUDA ...PETITIONER (BY SHRI.M.V.SUNDER RAMAN, ADVOCATE ALONG WITH SHRI.K.ARUN KUMAR, ADVOCATE) AND: 1. STATE OF KARNATAKA REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY DEPARTMENT OF PARLIAMENTARY AFFAIRS VIDHANA SOUDHA, Dr.AMBEDKAR VEEDHI BANGALORE–560 001 2. STATE OF KARNATAKA REPRESENTED BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY DEPARTMENT OF FOREST ECOLOGY AND ENVIRONMENT, M.S.BUILDING Dr.AMBEDKAR VEEDHI BANGALORE-560 001 3. THE PRINCIPAL CHIEF CONSERVATOR

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

201 REPRESENTED BY Mr.MALLANAGOUDA ...PETITIONER (BY SHRI.M.V.SUNDER RAMAN, ADVOCATE ALONG WITH SHRI.K.ARUN KUMAR, ADVOCATE) AND: 1. STATE OF KARNATAKA REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY DEPARTMENT OF PARLIAMENTARY AFFAIRS VIDHANA SOUDHA, Dr.AMBEDKAR VEEDHI BANGALORE–560 001 2. STATE OF KARNATAKA REPRESENTED BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY DEPARTMENT OF FOREST ECOLOGY AND ENVIRONMENT, M.S.BUILDING Dr.AMBEDKAR VEEDHI BANGALORE-560 001 3. THE PRINCIPAL CHIEF CONSERVATOR

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

201 REPRESENTED BY Mr.MALLANAGOUDA ...PETITIONER (BY SHRI.M.V.SUNDER RAMAN, ADVOCATE ALONG WITH SHRI.K.ARUN KUMAR, ADVOCATE) AND: 1. STATE OF KARNATAKA REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY DEPARTMENT OF PARLIAMENTARY AFFAIRS VIDHANA SOUDHA, Dr.AMBEDKAR VEEDHI BANGALORE–560 001 2. STATE OF KARNATAKA REPRESENTED BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY DEPARTMENT OF FOREST ECOLOGY AND ENVIRONMENT, M.S.BUILDING Dr.AMBEDKAR VEEDHI BANGALORE-560 001 3. THE PRINCIPAL CHIEF CONSERVATOR

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

201 REPRESENTED BY Mr.MALLANAGOUDA ...PETITIONER (BY SHRI.M.V.SUNDER RAMAN, ADVOCATE ALONG WITH SHRI.K.ARUN KUMAR, ADVOCATE) AND: 1. STATE OF KARNATAKA REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY DEPARTMENT OF PARLIAMENTARY AFFAIRS VIDHANA SOUDHA, Dr.AMBEDKAR VEEDHI BANGALORE–560 001 2. STATE OF KARNATAKA REPRESENTED BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY DEPARTMENT OF FOREST ECOLOGY AND ENVIRONMENT, M.S.BUILDING Dr.AMBEDKAR VEEDHI BANGALORE-560 001 3. THE PRINCIPAL CHIEF CONSERVATOR

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

201 REPRESENTED BY Mr.MALLANAGOUDA ...PETITIONER (BY SHRI.M.V.SUNDER RAMAN, ADVOCATE ALONG WITH SHRI.K.ARUN KUMAR, ADVOCATE) AND: 1. STATE OF KARNATAKA REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY DEPARTMENT OF PARLIAMENTARY AFFAIRS VIDHANA SOUDHA, Dr.AMBEDKAR VEEDHI BANGALORE–560 001 2. STATE OF KARNATAKA REPRESENTED BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY DEPARTMENT OF FOREST ECOLOGY AND ENVIRONMENT, M.S.BUILDING Dr.AMBEDKAR VEEDHI BANGALORE-560 001 3. THE PRINCIPAL CHIEF CONSERVATOR

M/S S.V.CHETTY IRON ORE MINES vs. STATE OF KARNATAKA

In the result, these petitions must succeed

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

201 REPRESENTED BY Mr.MALLANAGOUDA ...PETITIONER (BY SHRI.M.V.SUNDER RAMAN, ADVOCATE ALONG WITH SHRI.K.ARUN KUMAR, ADVOCATE) AND: 1. STATE OF KARNATAKA REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY DEPARTMENT OF PARLIAMENTARY AFFAIRS VIDHANA SOUDHA, Dr.AMBEDKAR VEEDHI BANGALORE–560 001 2. STATE OF KARNATAKA REPRESENTED BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY DEPARTMENT OF FOREST ECOLOGY AND ENVIRONMENT, M.S.BUILDING Dr.AMBEDKAR VEEDHI BANGALORE-560 001 3. THE PRINCIPAL CHIEF CONSERVATOR