Karnataka High Court

Sec. 2(22)(E), Sec. 142(1), Sec. 143(2), Section 132, Section 142, Section 153

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

Section 10A, Sec. 260A, Section 10B, Section 56, Section 80HHC, Section 80HHE

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),

Income Tax Case Laws, Section 37

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

Income Tax Case Laws, Section 14A

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

Income Tax Case Laws, Sec. 260A

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

Section 92, Sec. 260A, Section 260, Section 92CA

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.

Scroll to Top
Malcare WordPress Security