TATA ELXSI LIMITED ,BANGALORE vs. DEPUTY COMMISIONER INCOMER TAX, CIRCLE-7(1)(1), BANGALORE

Accordingly, the appeal filed by the assessee is partly allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Narender Kumar Choudhry & Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahuassessment Year : 2018-19 M/S. Tata Elxsi Ltd., The Deputy 126, Itpb Road, Commissioner Hoody, Of Income Tax, Whitefield, Circle – 7(1)(1), Bangalore – 560 048. Bangalore. Vs. Pan: Aaact7872Q Appellant Respondent

disallowed the deduction u/s.80IB(9) of the Act for A.Y. 2013-14, similar claims in earlier year was decided in favour of the assessee by the ITAT for A.Y.2012-13 and hence, the appeal raised by the assessee for A.Y.2013-14 on this ground i.e. ground No.4 in ITA No.7299/Mum/2017 is covered. 108. Now, the assessee contends that in light

DCIT vs. M/S SUBRAMANYA CONSTRUCTION & DEVELOPERS COMPANY LTD.,,

In the result, the appeal of the revenue is dismissed whereas the

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav & Shri Abraham P George

80M on the net income received. And, the Revenue having failed to establish that the respondent assessee had incurred any expenses for earning dividend income from the amount borrowed, they have rightly not added sum of Rs.6.62 crores invoking provisions of Section 14A which does not permit deduction of expenditure incurred in relation to income not includible in total income

M/S. TATA ELXSI LIMITED,BANGALORE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-7(1)(1), BANGALORE

disallowed the deduction\nu/s.80IB(9) of the Act for A.Y. 2013-14, similar claims in earlier year was decided in\nfavour of the assessee by the ITAT for A.Y.2012-13 and hence, the appeal raised by the\nassessee for A.Y.2013-14 on this ground i.e. ground No.4 in ITA No.7299/Mum/2017 is\ncovered.\n107. Now, the assessee contends that in light

M/S CYBER PARK DEVELOPMENT & CONSTRUCTION LTD. vs. DCIT,

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is partly allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Sunil Kumar Yadav & Shri Inturi Rama Raom/S.Cyber Park Develoment & Construction Ltd. Plot Nos.76 & 77, Electronic Phase I, Hosur Road, Bangalore-560 100. … Appellant Pa No.Aaccc1113H Vs. Deputy Commissioner Of Income-Tax, Circle 11(2), Bangalore. … Respondent

section 32(1)(ii) of the Act. Therefore, the claim of depreciation is allowable in light of the Hon’ble Supreme Court’s judgment in the case of CIT vs. Smifs Securities Ltd.(348 ITR 302)(SC). As regards disallowance u/s 14A, learned AR of the assessee contended that the AO is not justified in making disallowance without recording

M/S MAHARASHTRA APEX CORPORATION LIMITED ,MANIPAL vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE-1 , , UDUPI

In the result, all the appeals filed by the assessee stands allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillai

section 80M. 5. The Ld.AO passed the OGE on 31/12/2010 denying the appellant’s claim for depreciation in respect of leased transaction by holding that the same is a financial transaction by relying on the decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court in case of Asea Brown Boveri Ltd. vs. Industrial Finance Corporation of India (supra). 6. This view was also

M/S MAHARASHTRA APEX CORPORATION LIMITED ,MANIPAL vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE-1 , , UDUPI

In the result, all the appeals filed by the assessee stands allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillai

section 80M. 5. The Ld.AO passed the OGE on 31/12/2010 denying the appellant’s claim for depreciation in respect of leased transaction by holding that the same is a financial transaction by relying on the decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court in case of Asea Brown Boveri Ltd. vs. Industrial Finance Corporation of India (supra). 6. This view was also

M/S MAHARASHTRA APEX CORPORATION LTD ,MANIPAL vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE-1 , , UDUPI

In the result, all the appeals filed by the assessee stands allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillai

section 80M. 5. The Ld.AO passed the OGE on 31/12/2010 denying the appellant’s claim for depreciation in respect of leased transaction by holding that the same is a financial transaction by relying on the decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court in case of Asea Brown Boveri Ltd. vs. Industrial Finance Corporation of India (supra). 6. This view was also

M/S MAHARASHTRA APEX CORPORATION LIMITED ,MANIPAL vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE-1 , , UDUPI

In the result, all the appeals filed by the assessee stands allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillai

section 80M. 5. The Ld.AO passed the OGE on 31/12/2010 denying the appellant’s claim for depreciation in respect of leased transaction by holding that the same is a financial transaction by relying on the decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court in case of Asea Brown Boveri Ltd. vs. Industrial Finance Corporation of India (supra). 6. This view was also

M/S MAHARASHTRA APEX CORPORATION LIMITED ,MANIPAL vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE-1 , , UDUPI

In the result, all the appeals filed by the assessee stands allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillai

section 80M. 5. The Ld.AO passed the OGE on 31/12/2010 denying the appellant’s claim for depreciation in respect of leased transaction by holding that the same is a financial transaction by relying on the decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court in case of Asea Brown Boveri Ltd. vs. Industrial Finance Corporation of India (supra). 6. This view was also

M/S MAHARASHTRA APEX CORPORATION LIMITED ,MANIPAL vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE-1 , , UDUPI

In the result, all the appeals filed by the assessee stands allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillai

section 80M. 5. The Ld.AO passed the OGE on 31/12/2010 denying the appellant’s claim for depreciation in respect of leased transaction by holding that the same is a financial transaction by relying on the decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court in case of Asea Brown Boveri Ltd. vs. Industrial Finance Corporation of India (supra). 6. This view was also

CANARA BANK,BANGALORE vs. ADDL. C.I.T., BANGALORE

In the result, appeal by the revenue is partly allowed

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri Inturi Rama Rao

disallowance u/s 14A cannot be added to book profit for the purpose of computing taxable income u/s ITA Nos.479 & 530/09, ……693 & 684/B/12 Page 6 of 42 115JB of the Act following the law laid down by the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Apollo Tyres Ltd. (255 ITR 273). 6. Being aggrieved by that part of the order

ADDL.CIT, BANGALORE vs. M/S CANARA BANK, BANGALORE

In the result, appeal by the revenue is partly allowed

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri Inturi Rama Rao

disallowance u/s 14A cannot be added to book profit for the purpose of computing taxable income u/s ITA Nos.479 & 530/09, ……693 & 684/B/12 Page 6 of 42 115JB of the Act following the law laid down by the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Apollo Tyres Ltd. (255 ITR 273). 6. Being aggrieved by that part of the order

JCIT, BANGALORE vs. M/S CANARA BANK, BANGALORE

In the result, appeal by the revenue is partly allowed

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri Inturi Rama Rao

disallowance u/s 14A cannot be added to book profit for the purpose of computing taxable income u/s ITA Nos.479 & 530/09, ……693 & 684/B/12 Page 6 of 42 115JB of the Act following the law laid down by the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Apollo Tyres Ltd. (255 ITR 273). 6. Being aggrieved by that part of the order

ADDL.CI.T., BANGALORE vs. M/S CANARA BANK, BANGALORE

In the result, appeal by the revenue is partly allowed

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri Inturi Rama Rao

disallowance u/s 14A cannot be added to book profit for the purpose of computing taxable income u/s ITA Nos.479 & 530/09, ……693 & 684/B/12 Page 6 of 42 115JB of the Act following the law laid down by the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Apollo Tyres Ltd. (255 ITR 273). 6. Being aggrieved by that part of the order

CANARA BANK,BANGALORE vs. JCIT, BANGALORE

In the result, appeal by the revenue is partly allowed

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri Inturi Rama Rao

disallowance u/s 14A cannot be added to book profit for the purpose of computing taxable income u/s ITA Nos.479 & 530/09, ……693 & 684/B/12 Page 6 of 42 115JB of the Act following the law laid down by the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Apollo Tyres Ltd. (255 ITR 273). 6. Being aggrieved by that part of the order

M/S. CANARA BANK,BANGALORE vs. ACIT, BANGALORE

In the result, appeal by the revenue is partly allowed

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri Inturi Rama Rao

disallowance u/s 14A cannot be added to book profit for the purpose of computing taxable income u/s ITA Nos.479 & 530/09, ……693 & 684/B/12 Page 6 of 42 115JB of the Act following the law laid down by the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Apollo Tyres Ltd. (255 ITR 273). 6. Being aggrieved by that part of the order

JCIT, BANGALORE vs. M/S CANARA BANK, BANGALORE

In the result, appeal by the revenue is partly allowed

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri Inturi Rama Rao

disallowance u/s 14A cannot be added to book profit for the purpose of computing taxable income u/s ITA Nos.479 & 530/09, ……693 & 684/B/12 Page 6 of 42 115JB of the Act following the law laid down by the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Apollo Tyres Ltd. (255 ITR 273). 6. Being aggrieved by that part of the order

CANARA BANK,BANGALORE vs. ADDL.C.I.T., BANGALORE

In the result, appeal by the revenue is partly allowed

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri Inturi Rama Rao

disallowance u/s 14A cannot be added to book profit for the purpose of computing taxable income u/s ITA Nos.479 & 530/09, ……693 & 684/B/12 Page 6 of 42 115JB of the Act following the law laid down by the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Apollo Tyres Ltd. (255 ITR 273). 6. Being aggrieved by that part of the order