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

THE PR COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX vs. SMT SAROJINI M KUSHE

Appeal stands dismissed

Bench: S.SUJATHA,HANCHATE SANJEEVKUMAR

3. The respondent – assessee is an individual deriving managerial remuneration from M/s PVS Beedies (P) Ltd. The assessee filed return of income for the assessment year under consideration declaring the total income of Rs.28,39,420/- and subsequently filed revised return of income declaring the income of Rs.1,02,10,700/- including an additional income of Rs.73

PR COMMISSIONER OF WEALTH TAX-6 vs. M R KODANDRAM

Appeals stand dismissed

Bench: RAVI MALIMATH,ASHOK S.KINAGI

3. The assessing officer completed the assessment by computing the long term capital gains, quantifying the sale consideration as the cost of construction of 26% of constructed area and allotted to the assessee as per the JDA dated 11.5.2009 treating the cost of construction as the full value of consideration. Being aggrieved, the assessee preferred an appeal before the Commissioner

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

Bench: S.SUJATHA,VINEET KOTHARI

3 CIT Vs. Sitaldas Tirathdas 41 ITR 367 (SC) 12-16 4 CIT Vs. Pompie Tile Works 175 ITR 1 (Kar) 17-19A 5 CTI Vs. Dharma Productions (P) Ltd 153 ITR 105 (Bom) 20-27 6 Raja Bejoy Singh Dudhuria Vs. CIT 1 ITR 135 (Privy Council) 28-31 9 CIT Vs. Nagarbail Salt-Owners Co-Op Society

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

Bench: S.SUJATHA,VINEET KOTHARI

3 CIT Vs. Sitaldas Tirathdas 41 ITR 367 (SC) 12-16 4 CIT Vs. Pompie Tile Works 175 ITR 1 (Kar) 17-19A 5 CTI Vs. Dharma Productions (P) Ltd 153 ITR 105 (Bom) 20-27 6 Raja Bejoy Singh Dudhuria Vs. CIT 1 ITR 135 (Privy Council) 28-31 9 CIT Vs. Nagarbail Salt-Owners Co-Op Society

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

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 143(3

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

201’ DATED 11/04/2011 WL348820i1 T ANos350235i221l BETWEEN M/S WIRELESS TI’ INFO SERVICES LTD IPRESF i\TL\ KNOWN \S \ IOM NEThORK LiD) 5TH FLOORSJR PRIMUS, NO 1 KORAMANGALA INDUSTRIAL LAYOUT 7TH BLOCK, KORAMANGALA. BYNGALORE 560095, REPRESENTED BY ITS ASSISTANT MANAGERAEGAL SHRI GAUTHAM M S ASSISTANT MANAGERLEGAL. (By SEJYLiTHS V LAKSHMI KUMARAN, V SRIDHARAN, SHIV.ADASS, I 1ARISH R & SYED PEERAN. ADV5I STATE

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

R JANARDHANA BABU vs. THE MANAGING DIRECTOR

Accordingly, the writ petitions are allowed

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

201. M Venkatesh, s/o Muniswamy Reddy, aged about 55 years, Working as pharma Assistant, Glaxosmithkline Pharmaceuticals Limited, Devanahalli Road, Off Old Madras Road, Bangalore-560049. 202. Byre Gowda, s/o T Anjanappa, aged about 55 years, Working as pharma Assistant, Glaxosmithkline Pharmaceuticals Limited, Devanahalli Road, Off Old Madras Road, Bangalore-560049 203. P B Joseph, s/o J P Benhamin, aged about

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

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

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

SATHVAHANA ISPAT 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

M/S. HOTHUR TRADERS 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 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 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