Tag: Karnataka High Court

Karnataka H.C : There exists any undisclosed income which may belong to any other person other than the searched person under Sections 132 or 132-A

High Court Of Karnataka Shyamraj Singh And SVK Minerals By ITS Managing (Rep.Partner, Mr. Shyamraj Singh) vs. Commissioner Of Deputy Income Tax And Ors. Section 153C Asst. Year 2008-09 S. Sujatha, J. W.P.No.36004/2018 C/W, W.P.No.36005/2018 (T â€“ IT) 24th January, 2019 Counsel Appeared: Vani H., ADV. for the Petitioner.: K.V. Aravind, Adv. for the Respondent. ORDER …

Karnataka H.C : Agreement between the assessee and Smt. Vandana Poddar dated 24.05.2004 (seized documents A/BP/1) to pay her Rs.11 Crores and the payment of Rs. 11.05 Crores by MEL at the instance of the assessee who was the MS and the shareholder to M/s. Solid Real Estate Private Limited and in turn to Smt. Vandana Poddar would amount to deemed dividend as per Section 2(22)(e) of the Act, and the judgments of the Apex Court in 229 ITR 444, 290 ITR 893

High Court Of Karnataka CIT (Central) And Anr. vs. Basant Poddar Section 2(22)(e), 132, 142(1), 143(2), 153A Asst. Year 2004-2005 Ravi Malimath & K. Natarajan, JJ. Income Tax Appeal No.73 of 2010 10th December, 2018 Counsel Appeared: K.V. Aravind, Adv. for the Petitioner.: A.Shankar, Sr. Counsel, M. Lava, Adv. for the Respondent. RAVI MALIMATH J.: The …

Karnataka H.C : The firm, M/s.Srinivasa Enterprises, was the owner of the capital asset viz. land and building comprised in Gopal theatre situated at Tank Road, Doddaballapur

High Court Of Karnataka S.K. Ravikumar vs. ITO Section 45(4) Ravi Malimath & K. Natarajan, JJ. Income Tax Appeal No. 82 OF 2010 28th November, 2018 Counsel Appeared: Priya V., Advocate G.K.V. Murthy, Advocate for the Petitioner.: K. V. Aravind, Advocate for the Respondent RAVI MALIMATH, J. 1. The assessee is a partnership firm in the …

Karnataka H.C : The statute allows exclusion of such expenditure expressly only from the Export Turnover by way of specific definition of export turnover defined in the Act, while there is no specific provision in Section 10A warranting exclusion of the above expenses from the Total Turnover

High Court Of Karnataka Pr.CIT And Anr. vs. M/S Sasken Communication Technologies Ltd. Section 10A, 10A(1), 10A(2), 10A(3), 10A(4), 10A(6), 10B, 56, 80HHC, 80HHE, 260-A and Section 2(18) of Customs Act, 1962 Asst. Year 2005-06 Dinesh Maheshwari, CJ. & S.G. Pandit, J. I.T.A. Nos.44-45 OF 2016 31st October, 2018 Counsel Appeared: E.I. Sanmathi, Adv. for the …

Karnataka H.C : Senior Counsel appearing for the respondent/assessee sought to justify the impugned order passed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, allowing the deduction under Section 10B of the Act and remanding the matter for re-consideration and the assessee’s cross appeal was remand d which is not challenged here

High Court Of Karnataka CIT And Anr. vs. M/S. Trident Minerals (100% EOU) Section 10B Asst. Year 2009-10 B.Veerappa & H.T. Narendra Prasad, JJ. I.T.A.No 100029/2014 10th October, 2018 Counsel Appeared: Raviraj, Adv. for the Petitioner.: M.V. Seshachala, Sr. Counsel, H.R.Kambiyavar, Adv. for the Respondent. VEERAPPA J.: This appeal is filed by the Revenue against the …

Karnataka H.C : The Distributable Surplus paid by the Respondent Assessee M/s. CHAMUNDI WINERY AND DISTILLERY to DIAGEO INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED in pursuance of the Agreement dated 30/10/2007 between these two parties was not ‘application of income’, but an ‘allowable expenditure’ in the hands of the Respondent Assessee under Section 37 of the Ac

High Court Of Karnataka Pr. CIT & Ors. vs. Chamundi Winery And Distillery & Ors. Section 37 Asst. Year 2008-09 to 2012-13 Vineet Kothari & S. Sujatha, JJ. ITA No. 155/2016 C/W ITA No. 458/2013, 467/2015, 173/2017, 172/2017, 155/2016 25th September, 2018 Counsel appeared: E.R. Indrakumar, Sr. Counsel for E. I. Sanmathi, Advocate K.V. Aravind, Advocate …

Karnataka H.C : Neither assessing authority nor Dispute Resolution Panel has recorded specific finding as to whether the assessee has incurred specific expenditure or not even when the ingredients of section 14A are satisfied in the case of the assessee and the assessing authority has categorically specified the expenditure for such dis allowance

High Court Of Karnataka Pr. CIT And Ors. vs. Goldman Sachs Services Pvt. Ltd. Section 14A, 260-A and Rule 8D of Income Tax Rules Asst. Year 2010-11 Dr. Justice Vineet Kothari & S.Sujatha, JJ. I.T.A. No.495/2017 28th August, 2018 Counsel Appeared: Dilip Adv., K.V. Aravind, Advs. for the Petitioner.: Sandeep Huilgol, T Suryanarayana, Adv. for the …

Karnataka H.C : The Tribunal is correct in directing the assessing officer to exclude expenses incurred in foreign currency and other expenses that has been excluded from ETO, from the total turnover also and accordingly recomputed the deduction under section 10A without appreciating the fact that there is no provision in sec. 10A that such expenses should be reduced from the total turnover also as clause (iv) of the Explanat on 2 to Sec. 10A provides that such expenses are to be reduced only from the export turnover

High Court Of Karnataka Pr.CIT And Anr. vs. Cypress Semiconductors Technology India Pvt. Ltd. Section : 260A Asst. Year 2005-06 Vineet Kothari & S. Sujatha, JJ. ITA No. 399/2017 16th August, 2018 Counsel appeared: Aravind K V, Adv. for the Petitioner S. SUJATHA, J. This Appeal is filed by the Revenue purportedly raising substantial questions of …

Karnataka H.C : Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal is right in law in directing the AO/TPO to confine Arms Length Adjustment to the value of international transactions in the manufacturing segment of the assessee by relying on the decision of it in case of assessee itself which has not reached finality without appreciating that TPO has chosen TNMM method as the most appropriate method for determinate ion of ALP with regard to the manufacturing segment and has accepted same comparable as selected by assessee for bench marking analysis?

High Court Of Karnataka Pr.CIT & Anr vs. Products India Automotive Pvt. Ltd Section 92CA, 260-A Asst. Year 2010-11 Dr. Vineet Kothari & S. Sujatha, JJ. I.T.A. No.395/2017 7th August, 2018 Counsel Appeared: Aravind. K.V., Adv. for the Petitioner.: K.R. Vasudevan, Ankur Pai, Advs. for the Respondent. S. SUJATHA, J.: This Appeal is filed by the …

Karnataka H.C : Reassessment proceedings under Section 147/148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 for the A.Y. 20/03/2004 could not be undertaken on a mere change of opinion or audit objection raised by the internal auditors of the Department

High Court Of Karnataka CIT & Anr. vs. Gmr Holding Pvt. Ltd. Vineet Kothari & S.Sujatha, JJ I.T.A. No. 58/2012 Section 260A, 147/148, 143(3) Asst. Year 2003-2004 31st July, 2018 Counsel appeared: E.I. Sanmathi, Adv. for the Assessee.: K.S. Ramabadran, Adv.(Absent) for the Revenue JUDGEMENT Revenue has filed this appeal raising purported substantial questions of law …