AP State Financial Corporation v. DCIT

372 ITR 315High Court#20659 most cited
4

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 366,314 Indian tax judgments — from 2021 to 2021.

Judgments citing AP State Financial Corporation v. DCIT

M/S.Krishna Bhagya Jala Nigam Ltd, Bangalore vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-4(1)(1), Bangalore

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 3064/BANG/2018[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore10 Nov 2021AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri N. V. Vasudevan & Shri B. R. Baskaranassessment Year : 2014-15 M/S. Krishna Bhagya Jala Nigam Limited, Acit, Pwd Offices, Annexe, 3Rd Floor, K. R. Circle – 4(1)(1), Circle, Bengaluru – 560 001. Bengaluru. Pan : Aaack 5850 B

For Respondent: Shri. Manjunath Karkihalli, CIT(DR)(ITAT), Bengaluru
Section 37Section 40Section 5(1)

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “B” BENCH : BANGALORE BEFORE SHRI N. V. VASUDEVAN, VICE PRESIDENT AND SHRI B. R. BASKARAN, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER Assessment Year : 2014-15 M/s. Krishna Bhagya Jala Nigam Limited, ACIT, PWD Offices, Annexe, 3rd Floor, K. R. Circle – 4(1)(1), Circle, Bengaluru – 560 001. Bengaluru. PAN : AAACK 5850 B Assessee by: : Shri. Raghavendra R. Chakravarthy, CA Revenue by : Shri. Manjunath Karkihalli, CIT(DR)(ITAT), Bengaluru Date of hearing : 02.11.2021 Date of Pronouncement : 10.11.2021 O R D E R Per N. V. Vasudevan, Vice President: This is an appeal by the assessee against the order date…

Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle -4(1)(1), Bangalore vs. M/S. Karnataka State Financial Corporation, Bangalore

In the result, the appeals of the Assessee are allowed while the appeal by the revenue is dismissed

ITA 1420/BANG/2019[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore04 Mar 2021AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri N. V. Vasudevan & Shri Chandra Poojari

For Respondent: Shri. Muzaffar Hussain, CIT(DR)(ITAT), Bengaluru
Section 20Section 40Section 5(1)Section 7

…enue expenditure and has to be allowed as deduction u/s.37 of the Act as held by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of CIT Vs. Sivakami Mills Ltd. 227 ITR 465 (SC) and Hon’ble Andhra Pradesh High Court in the case of AP State Financial Corporation Vs. DCIT 372 ITR 315 (AP). Even after insertion of Sec.40(a)(iib) of the Act by the Fianance Act, 2013 w.e.f. 1.4.2014, to fall within the ambit of the said provision a payment should be in the nature of “royalty, licence fee, service fee, privilege fee, service charge or any other fee or charge, by whatever name called”. Guarantee Commission is not “royalty, licence…

M/S. Karnataka State Financial Corporation, Bangalore vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle - 4(1)(1), Bengaluru

In the result, the appeals of the Assessee are allowed while the appeal by the revenue is dismissed

ITA 1413/BANG/2019[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore04 Mar 2021AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri N. V. Vasudevan & Shri Chandra Poojari

For Respondent: Shri. Muzaffar Hussain, CIT(DR)(ITAT), Bengaluru
Section 20Section 40Section 5(1)Section 7

…enue expenditure and has to be allowed as deduction u/s.37 of the Act as held by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of CIT Vs. Sivakami Mills Ltd. 227 ITR 465 (SC) and Hon’ble Andhra Pradesh High Court in the case of AP State Financial Corporation Vs. DCIT 372 ITR 315 (AP). Even after insertion of Sec.40(a)(iib) of the Act by the Fianance Act, 2013 w.e.f. 1.4.2014, to fall within the ambit of the said provision a payment should be in the nature of “royalty, licence fee, service fee, privilege fee, service charge or any other fee or charge, by whatever name called”. Guarantee Commission is not “royalty, licence…

M/S Karnataka State Financial Corporation, Bangalore vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax Circle-4(1)(1), Bangalore

In the result, the appeals of the Assessee are allowed while the appeal by the revenue is dismissed

ITA 3190/BANG/2018[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore04 Mar 2021AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri N. V. Vasudevan & Shri Chandra Poojari

For Respondent: Shri. Muzaffar Hussain, CIT(DR)(ITAT), Bengaluru
Section 20Section 40Section 5(1)Section 7

…enue expenditure and has to be allowed as deduction u/s.37 of the Act as held by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of CIT Vs. Sivakami Mills Ltd. 227 ITR 465 (SC) and Hon’ble Andhra Pradesh High Court in the case of AP State Financial Corporation Vs. DCIT 372 ITR 315 (AP). Even after insertion of Sec.40(a)(iib) of the Act by the Fianance Act, 2013 w.e.f. 1.4.2014, to fall within the ambit of the said provision a payment should be in the nature of “royalty, licence fee, service fee, privilege fee, service charge or any other fee or charge, by whatever name called”. Guarantee Commission is not “royalty, licence…

AP State Financial Corporation v. DCIT (372 ITR 315) — Cited in 4 Judgments | BharatTax