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 u/s 143(1

PR COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-5 vs. M/S PAGE INDUSTRIES LTD

In the result, the appeal fails and is hereby dismissed

Bench: ALOK ARADHE,R. NATARAJ

65,514/-. The Assessing Officer, by an order dated 03.02.2014, processed the return. Thereafter, the case of the assessee was taken up for scrutiny and notice under Section 143(2) of the Act was issued. The Assessing Officer, during the course of the proceedings, found that the 4 assessee - Company had returned the international transaction in Form 3CEB and paid

SHRI. PARSWANATH vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX

Bench: The Hon'Ble Mr. Justice M. Nagaprasanna

65 17 “94. Once it is found that charge of conspiracy against the public servants cannot stand nor can be proved the question of proving the charge of abetment against the petitioners and even other players in this game does not arise as the genesis of the charge against them is charge against the public servants. Thus, in the absence

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

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 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

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

SRI M MADHAVA GOWDA vs. UNDER SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT

Bench: The Hon’Ble Mr.Justice Aravind Kumar

price of the liquor being sold to the customers depending upon the varying degree of facilities provided by them to the customers. 28. The Legislature has inserted Entry 59A in the III Schedule to KVAT Act and has chosen to provide for levy of tax on liquor sold by certain licence holders. Notification – II bearing No.FD 21 CSL 2014 dated

FEDERATION OF WINES MERCHANTS ASSOCIATION vs. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA

Bench: The Hon’Ble Mr.Justice Aravind Kumar

price of the liquor being sold to the customers depending upon the varying degree of facilities provided by them to the customers. 28. The Legislature has inserted Entry 59A in the III Schedule to KVAT Act and has chosen to provide for levy of tax on liquor sold by certain licence holders. Notification – II bearing No.FD 21 CSL 2014 dated

M. NARAYANAPPA vs. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA

Bench: The Hon’Ble Mr.Justice Aravind Kumar

price of the liquor being sold to the customers depending upon the varying degree of facilities provided by them to the customers. 28. The Legislature has inserted Entry 59A in the III Schedule to KVAT Act and has chosen to provide for levy of tax on liquor sold by certain licence holders. Notification – II bearing No.FD 21 CSL 2014 dated

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

The appeal stands dismissed

Bench: SATISH CHANDRA SHARMA,V SRISHANANDA

transfer pricing adjustment for Rs.4,16,65,106/- on the basis of the order passed under Section 92CA of the Act dated 24.10.2016. The assessing authority also made other additions. The assessee’s objections were not considered by the Dispute Resumption Panel and therefore, an appeal was 3 filed before the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Bangalore (hereinafter referred

SRI SRIDHAR vs. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA

Bench: JAYANT PATEL,N.K.SUDHINDRARAO

section 2 against collection of additional tax from the consumers. Yet another point taken in the Writ Petitions but not very seriously urged at the time of hearing is that the levy of additional tax under the impugned Act offends Article 301 of the Constitution since the imposition of the additional liability would seriously affect the business of the petitioners

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 SSJV PROJECTS PRIVATE LIMITED vs. M/S ALLAHABAD BANK

In the result, the writ appeals are disposed in

Bench: B.V.NAGARATHNA,R. NATARAJ

price is less than eight times the net annual income of the land. (2) Nothing in sub-section (1) shall apply to lands granted under Section 77. -: 80 :- 81. Sections 79-A, 79-B, and 80 not to apply in certain cases.- (1) Nothing in Section 79-A or Section 79-B or Section 80 shall apply

SRI U M RAMESH RAO vs. UNION BANK OF INDIA

In the result, the writ appeals are disposed in

Bench: B.V.NAGARATHNA,R. NATARAJ

price is less than eight times the net annual income of the land. (2) Nothing in sub-section (1) shall apply to lands granted under Section 77. -: 80 :- 81. Sections 79-A, 79-B, and 80 not to apply in certain cases.- (1) Nothing in Section 79-A or Section 79-B or Section 80 shall apply

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

1. THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX LTU JSS TOWERS BSK III STAGE BANGALORE. 2. THE DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX LTU JSS TOWERS BSK III STAGE BANGALORE ... APPELLANTS (BY SRI.K.V.ARAVIND, ADV.,) AND: M/S BIOCON LTD. 20TH KM, HOSUR ROAD ELECTRONIC CITY HEBBAGODI BANGALORE - 560 100. ... RESPONDENT (BY SRI.T.SURYANARAYANA, ADV.) - - - 2 THIS ITA IS FILED UNDER SECTION

SMT. S. JALAJA vs. UNION OF INDIA

In the result, writ appeals are allowed

Bench: ALOK ARADHE,HEMANT CHANDANGOUDAR

1) and Clyde Engineering Co. v. Cowburn establish that the provisions of the law of the State for the breach of which the appellant was convicted are inconsistent with the law of the Commonwealth within the meaning of sec. 109 of the Constitution and are therefore invalid". 116 Issacs, J. observed as follows:- "There can be no question that