THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX vs. M/S KARNATAKA CO-OPERATIVE MILK PRODUCERS

Appeal is dismissed with costs

Bench: The Hon’Ble Mr. Justice N.K.Sudhindrarao R.S.A.No.70/2007

price for sale of property sold by her husband which is western portion of Tataguni estate in favour of plaintiff-Company and she has not agreed to sell the plaint schedule property to the plaintiff at the rate of Rs.40,000/- per acre. 17. It is further claimed that Managing Director of plaintiff-Company K.T. Bhagath was with

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

The appeals stand disposed of, accordingly

Bench: N.KUMAR,B.SREENIVASE GOWDA

Transfer Pricing Officer for determination of arms’ length price. As per the return filed the tax payable was Rs.48,38,27,302/-. The assessee also claimed TDS of Rs.6,02,14,066/- and advance tax payment of Rs.59,50,80,000/-. The assessee claimed refund of Rs.17,12,21,725/-. The return of income was processed

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

The appeals stand disposed of, accordingly

Bench: N.KUMAR,B.SREENIVASE GOWDA

Transfer Pricing Officer for determination of arms’ length price. As per the return filed the tax payable was Rs.48,38,27,302/-. The assessee also claimed TDS of Rs.6,02,14,066/- and advance tax payment of Rs.59,50,80,000/-. The assessee claimed refund of Rs.17,12,21,725/-. The return of income was processed

PR. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-5 vs. M/S. PUMA SPORTS INDIA P., LTD.,

The appeal stands dismissed

Bench: SATISH CHANDRA SHARMA,V SRISHANANDA

Section 144(C)(13) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as ‘Act’) by making transfer pricing adjustment for Rs.4,16,65

THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX vs. M/S. NUTRINE CONFECTIONERY CO. P. LTD.,

Appeal stands dismissed

Bench: N.KUMAR,RATHNAKALA

65 of the Act? 4. The Apex Court in the case of PNB Finance Ltd. V/s. Commissioner of Income-Tax reported in (2008) 307 ITR 75(SC) has held as under: “17. As regards applicability of Section 45 is concerned, three tests are required to be applied. In this case, Section 45 applies. There is no dispute on that point

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

THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX vs. M/S GOOGLE INDIA PVT LTD

Bench: S.SUJATHA,VINEET KOTHARI

Section 260-A of Income Tax Act 1961, praying to: 1. Formulate the substantial questions of law stated therein. 2. Allow the appeal and set aside the orders passed by the ITAT, Bangalore in ITA No.1368/Bang/2010 dated 19-10-2012 Annexure–D and confirm the order of the Appellate Commissioner confirming the order passed by the Deputy Commissioner of Income

THE PR.COMMISSIONER OF vs. M/S MAHAVEER CALYX

In the result, the orders passed by the Assessing

Bench: SATISH CHANDRA SHARMA,V SRISHANANDA

65(1) of the Karnataka Value Added Tax Act, 2003 hereinafter referred to as 'the Act' for short) has been filed against the order dated 31.07.2017 passed by the Karnataka Appellate Tribunal by which the Tribunal has upheld the common order dated 27.12.2012 passed by the Joint Commissioner of Commercial Taxes (Appeals) (hereinafter referred to as 'the Appellate Authority

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

HEWLETT PACKARD FINANCIAL SERVICES INDIA PRIVATE vs. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA

Bench: S.SUJATHA,JAYANT PATEL

65(1) OF THE KARNATAKA VALUE ADDED TAX ACT, 2003 AGAINST THE ORDER, JUDGMENT AND DECREE DATED 25.06.2015 PASSED IN STA NOS.1346 TO 1381/13, STA NOS.2529 TO 2564/2013 AND STA NO.2063/2014 ON THE FILE OF THE KARNATAKA APPELLATE TRIBUNAL AT BANGALORE, DISMISSING THE APPEALS AND UPHELDING THE ORDERS OF THE AA AND FAA. STRP 412/2015 IS FILED UNDER SECTION

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

65,18,080/-. The case was selected for scrutiny by the Assessing Officer. The Assessing Officer by an order dated 29.12.2006 inter alia held that assessee has floated a scheme viz., Employees Stock Option Plans (ESOP) and under the scheme had constituted the Trust. The shares of the company were transferred to the trust at the face value

PR COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX vs. M/S IND SING DEVELOPERS P LTD

The appeal is dismissed

Bench: B.V.NAGARATHNA,JAYANT PATEL

price of Rs.150/- sq.ft for the land has been fixed, but land was the capital to be introduced by the 32 assessee for the purpose of endeavor. That assessee had considerable stake, is clear from the fact that asseessee was obliged to offer the land as security for raising loans. Assessee had parted with possession with clear knowledge that

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

M/S J K CEMENT WORKS vs. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA

Bench: H.B.PRABHAKARA SASTRY,VINEET KOTHARI

65 of the Karnataka Value Added Tax Act, 2003 (for short ‘KVAT Act’) raising a question of law for consideration by this Court, being aggrieved by the order passed by the learned Karnataka Appellate Tribunal, Bengaluru, on 03rd September 2013, dismissing the appeals of the assessee in STA Nos.2055 to 2057 of 2011 (M/s. J.K.Cement Works V/s. State of Karnataka

THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX vs. PRAVEEN V DODDANAVAR

Bench: SREENIVAS HARISH KUMAR,VINEET KOTHARI

65 of the Karnataka Value Added Tax Act, 2003 (for short ‘KVAT Act’) raising a question of law for consideration by this Court, being aggrieved by the order passed by the learned Karnataka Appellate Tribunal, Bengaluru, on 03rd September 2013, dismissing the appeals of the assessee in STA Nos.2055 to 2057 of 2011 (M/s. J.K.Cement Works V/s. State of Karnataka

THE BAILHONGAL URBAN COOPERATIVE BANK LTD vs. THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX

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

65 of the Karnataka Value Added Tax Act, 2003 (for short ‘KVAT Act’) raising a question of law for consideration by this Court, being aggrieved by the order passed by the learned Karnataka Appellate Tribunal, Bengaluru, on 03rd September 2013, dismissing the appeals of the assessee in STA Nos.2055 to 2057 of 2011 (M/s. J.K.Cement Works V/s. State of Karnataka

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

65 SHRI.ADITYA SONDHI, SENIOR ADVOCATE ALONG WITH SHRI.M.KESHAVA REDDY, ADVOCATE FOR MONITORING COMMITTEE FOR RESPONDENT No.3) THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 226 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO QUASH THE KARNATAKA FOREST (AMENDMENT ACT) 2016 PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL GAZETTE ON 27.07.2016 (THE KARNATAKA ACT NO.23/2016, AMENDING THE KARNATAKA FOREST ACT 1963), COPYOF THE WHICH IS PRODUCED

M/S. HOTHUR TRADERS vs. STATE OF KARNATAKA

In the result, these petitions must succeed

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

65 SHRI.ADITYA SONDHI, SENIOR ADVOCATE ALONG WITH SHRI.M.KESHAVA REDDY, ADVOCATE FOR MONITORING COMMITTEE FOR RESPONDENT No.3) THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 226 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO QUASH THE KARNATAKA FOREST (AMENDMENT ACT) 2016 PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL GAZETTE ON 27.07.2016 (THE KARNATAKA ACT NO.23/2016, AMENDING THE KARNATAKA FOREST ACT 1963), COPYOF THE WHICH IS PRODUCED