THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX vs. M/S SHASTHA PHARMA LABORATORIES

The appeal is dismissed

Bench: N.KUMAR,RATHNAKALA

83,400/- on 28.12.1992. After considering assessment under Section 143(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’), an order came to be passed on 11.11.1994 treating the assesee as the unregistered firm and accepting the return filed. The assessment - 3 - was reopened by issuing notice under Section 148 of the Act on 19.12.2000, after

COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX vs. SRI.M.R.JANAKIRAM (HUF)

The appeal is allowed

Bench: ARAVIND KUMAR,E.S.INDIRESH

price of the said land and buy the scheduled property situated in 6.3 acres, immediately. 19. Prayer was sought for a direction to the Official Liquidator to sell the said 6.3 acres of schedule property wherein the Institution of the KIAMS is situated by accepting the amount stated therein. 20. Company Court vide order dated 30.09.2008 took note

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 paid or promised or part- paid and part-promised. Sale how made.—Such transfer, in the case of tangible immoveable property of the value of one hundred rupees and upwards, or in the case of a reversion or other intangible thing, can be made only by a registered instrument. 1In the case of tangible immoveable property of a value

COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-III vs. M/S YODLEE INFOTECH PVT LTD

The appeal is disposed of

Bench: ALOK ARADHE,M.I.ARUN

83,628/- under Section 10B of the Act and Rs.3,05,84,109/- as book profits under Section 115JB of the Act was claimed. The return was processed under Section 143(1) of the Act and was subsequently taken up for scrutiny. As the International transactions of the assessee were in excess of Rs.10 Crores, a reference under Section 92CA

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 vs. M/S WIPRO LIMITED

In the result, the appeal is disposed of in terms

Bench: ALOK ARADHE,H.T. NARENDRA PRASAD

section 10A nor under the provisions of the DTAA? (12) Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal is right in law in setting aside the allocation of corporate expenses for the purpose of deduction in respect of 10A and non-10A units by placing reliance on the orders passed in respect of earlier assessment

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

Bench: S.SUJATHA,VINEET KOTHARI

83,62,21,764/-]. 8. Since the said Assessment Order was passed in pursuance of the directions of the Dispute Resolution Panel (DRP) under Section 144 C (5) of the Income Tax Act, 1961, the Assessee Company preferred an appeal before the learned Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT), who disposed of the said appeal by the impugned Order dated 22/02/2017

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

PR COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX vs. M/S RAMBUS CHIP TECHNOLOGIES INDIA PVT LTD

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

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

83 of 2021 ORAL JUDGMENT (PER: HON'BLE MR JUSTICE S.G.PANDIT) Heard the learned counsel Sri. Sanmathi.E.I., for appellants/Revenue and learned counsel Smt.Tanmayee Rajkumar for respondent/assessee. 2. The Revenue is in appeal under Section 260-A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (for short ‘the Act’) questioning the correctness and legality of order dated 10.01.2020 passed by the Income

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

price! work of the respondent or riioz’e it out during the period the machinery was in his use: the condition that 11 me contractor i could be respom isible tor the (‘ustodq of the machinery mehile it was on (lie site did not militate aqatnst respondents possession and ontrol of th rnachmenj ReIiar 1 R ciiu

PR COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX- 4 vs. M/S JUPITER

Appeal is allowed in part accordingly

Bench: P.S.DINESH KUMAR,C.M. POONACHA

pricing of these shares at a premium of Rs.490/- per share? 2. Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal is right in deleting the disallowance made under Section 14A read with Rule 8D(ii) of the Act by relying upon the decision of Hon'ble Delhi High Court in the case of Cheminvest Limited

HERBALIFE INTERNATIONAL INDIA PVT LTD vs. THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX

In the result, the assessee's appeal for

Bench: V KAMESWAR RAO,S RACHAIAH

Transfer Pricing Adjustment of ALP, Doubtful Debts Written Off, Administrative Fees. According to him, no enquiry in the matter of Assessee’s claim for 100% depreciation on leasehold improvements was conducted by the Assessing Officer is established by the admission of the AR of the Assessee before the learned CIT on 13.12.2014 in the course of revisionary proceedings. 14. According

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

83 and other judicial pronouncements. Therefore, without altering the basis of the judicial pronouncements, the State could not have brought in the amendment only by adding explanations; (iii) No fee is leviable unless there is a quid pro quo in the form of a service or benefit; 12. The petitions are opposed by the State by filing the Statement

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

83 and other judicial pronouncements. Therefore, without altering the basis of the judicial pronouncements, the State could not have brought in the amendment only by adding explanations; (iii) No fee is leviable unless there is a quid pro quo in the form of a service or benefit; 12. The petitions are opposed by the State by filing the Statement

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

83 and other judicial pronouncements. Therefore, without altering the basis of the judicial pronouncements, the State could not have brought in the amendment only by adding explanations; (iii) No fee is leviable unless there is a quid pro quo in the form of a service or benefit; 12. The petitions are opposed by the State by filing the Statement

MUKUND LIMITED vs. STATE OF KARNATAKA

In the result, these petitions must succeed

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

83 and other judicial pronouncements. Therefore, without altering the basis of the judicial pronouncements, the State could not have brought in the amendment only by adding explanations; (iii) No fee is leviable unless there is a quid pro quo in the form of a service or benefit; 12. The petitions are opposed by the State by filing the Statement

M/S HARE KRISHNA METALICS PVT LTD vs. STATE OF KARNATAKA

In the result, these petitions must succeed

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

83 and other judicial pronouncements. Therefore, without altering the basis of the judicial pronouncements, the State could not have brought in the amendment only by adding explanations; (iii) No fee is leviable unless there is a quid pro quo in the form of a service or benefit; 12. The petitions are opposed by the State by filing the Statement