Kanhaiyalal Dudheria v. JCIT

113 Taxmann.com 217High Court2020#16499 most cited

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 366,339 Indian tax judgments — from 2020 to 2023.

Judgments citing Kanhaiyalal Dudheria v. JCIT

ACIT(Ltu-1), Mumbai vs. M/S. Tcs Ltd, Mumbai

ITA 5904/MUM/2019[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai15 Sept 2023AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy () & Ms. Padmavathy S. ()

Section 10ASection 115JSection 14ASection 19Section 40Section 90(1)(a)

…ollowing decisions:-  Shri Venkata Satyanarayan Rice Mill Contractors Co.VsCIT (89 Taxman 92)(SC)  Mysore Kirloskar Ltd Vs CIT – 30 Taxman 467(KarnatakaHC)  CIT vs Williamson Tea (Assam) Ltd* (38 Taxmann.com 154)(HC Gauhati)  Kanhaiyalal Dudheria vs JCIT (113 Taxmann.com 217)(HC Karnataka) 9. The Ld.DR, on the other hand, vehemently argued that the assessee itself has accounted the impugned payments as donation and, therefore, the same cannot be treated as an allowable expenditure under section 37(1). The Ld.DR further submitted that the MOU entered into between the assessee and the CCI are dated beyond finan…

Tata Consultancy Serrvices Limited, Mumbai vs. DCIT-1, Mumbai

ITA 5199/MUM/2019[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai15 Sept 2023AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy () & Ms. Padmavathy S. ()

Section 10ASection 115JSection 14ASection 19Section 40Section 90(1)(a)

M/S Zeenath Transport Company, Bellary vs. The Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax Circle-1, Bellary

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee stands partly allowed as indicated herein above

ITA 1780/BANG/2018[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore18 Aug 2021AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillai

For Appellant: Shri Siva Prasad Reddy, AdvocateFor Respondent: Ms. Neera Malhotra, CIT (DR)

Section 135Section 37Section 37(1)

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL ‘A’ BENCH : BANGALORE BEFORE SHRI CHANDRA POOJARI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SMT. BEENA PILLAI, JUDICIAL MEMBER ITA No.1780 - 1782/Bang/2018 Assessment Year : 2012-13 – 2014-15 M/s Zeenath Transport The Asst. Commissioner of Company, Income-Tax, Mine Owners, Zeenath Circle-1, House, Vs. Bellary. Door No.24,Ward No.22, Main Road, Cowl Bazar, Bellary-583 102. PAN – AAAFZ 0512 E APPELLANT RESPONDENT Assessee by : Shri Siva Prasad Reddy, Advocate Revenue by : Ms. Neera Malhotra, CIT (DR) Date of Hearing : 23-07-2021 Date of Pronouncement : 18-08-2021 ORDER PER BEENA PILLAI, JUDIC…

M/S Karnataka State Co-Operative Apex Bank Ltd vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax

In the result, the impugned order dated

ITA/275/2015HC Karnataka01 Mar 2021

Bench: ALOK ARADHE,ASHOK S.KINAGI

Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 260Section 260ASection 27

…1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 1ST DAY OF MARCH 2021 PRESENT THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE ALOK ARADHE AND THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE ASHOK S. KINAGI I.T.A. NO.275 OF 2015 BETWEEN: M/S. KARNATAKA STATE CO-OPERATIVE APEX BANK LTD., REP. BY ITS SECRETARY SRI C.N. DEVARAJ 'UTHUNGA', NO.1, PAMPA MAHAKAVI ROAD CHAMARAJAPET, BANGALORE-560018. ... APPELLANT (BY SRI. A. SHANKAR, SR. COUNSEL FOR SRI. M. LAVA, ADV.,) AND: DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE 3(1), UNITY BUILDINGS ANNEXE 4TH FLOOR, MISSION ROAD BANGALORE-560027. ... RESPONDENT (BY SRI. K.V. ARAVIND, ADV.,)…

M/S Hothur Traders, Ballari vs. Joint Commissioner of Income Tax, Ballari

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

ITA 1889/BANG/2016[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore21 Aug 2020AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri N.V. Vasudevan & Shri G. Manjunathaassessment Year: 2011-12

For Appellant: Shri B.S. Balachandran, A.RFor Respondent: Shri Priyadarshi Mishra, D.R

Section 37(1)Section 80G

…sessee is in appeal before us. 6. The Ld. A.R. for the assessee, at the time of hearing submitted that the issue is squarely covered in favour of the assessee by the decision of Hon’ble Karnataka High Court in the case of Kanhaiyalal Dhuderia Vs. JCIT (2020) 113 Taxmann.com 217 where under identical set of facts, the Hon’ble High Court held that expenditure incurred for construction of houses to rehabilitate flood victims would be in the realm of business expenditure allowable u/s 37 of the Act. The A.R. further submitted that the facts of the present case are similar to the facts considered by the Hon’ble High…