THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX vs. M/S WIPRO LTD

The appeals stand disposed of, accordingly

Bench: N.KUMAR,B.SREENIVASE GOWDA

14A of the Act categorically states no deduction shall be allowed in respect of expenditure incurred by the assessee in relation to income which does not form part of the total income under the Act and therefore, he submits no case for interference with the judgment of the Tribunal is made out. Section 90(1)(a)(ii) came into effect

M/S. EVERGREEN HARDWARE STORES vs. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF

Appeal is allowed

Bench: P.S.DINESH KUMAR,UMESH M ADIGA

2. Without prejudice, whether the computation of short term capital gains at Rs.68,86,826/- is in accordance with law and whether the excess over the cost of the building ought to have been taxed as long term capital gains on the facts and circumstances of the case. 3. Whether the Tribunal was justified in law in holding that

THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX vs. M/S. STATE BANK OF MYSORE

In the result, the order passed by the tribunal

Bench: ALOK ARADHE,H.T. NARENDRA PRASAD

2) of the Act is not applicable for Assessment Year 2003-04 and the Assessing Officer not having identified the expenditure and assuming the entire interest expenditure to the extent of exempt income without demonstrating the relatability / nexus with the exempt income, the disallowance under Section 14A is not sustainable. In support of aforesaid submissions, reliance has been placed

THE COMMISSIONER vs. M/S CANARA BANK

In the result, the appeal stands disposed of in terms of

Bench: S.SUJATHA,RAVI V HOSMANI

14A of the Act by following earlier order which has not reached finality even when all the ingredients of Section 14-A are satisfied in the case of Assessee? 2. "Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal is right in law in setting aside the disallowances of deprecation on HTM category of investments

THE COMMISSIONER vs. M/S CANARA BANK

In the result, we do not find merit in these

Bench: ALOK ARADHE,H.T. NARENDRA PRASAD

2) and also that the Bank had no working regarding deprecated value of assets and capital gains on sale of such assets? 3. Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal is right in law in setting aside that the 5 provisions of Section 115JB are not applicable to banking companies as no accounts

THE COMMISSIONER vs. M/S CANARA BANK

In the result, we do not find merit in these

Bench: ALOK ARADHE,H.T. NARENDRA PRASAD

2) and also that the Bank had no working regarding deprecated value of assets and capital gains on sale of such assets? 3. Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal is right in law in setting aside that the 5 provisions of Section 115JB are not applicable to banking companies as no accounts

THE PR. COMMISSIONER OF vs. M/S ALTIMETRIK INDIA PVT. LTD

Bench: This Court Under Section 260A Of Income Tax Act, 1961, Has Been Fixed As One Crore & Above.

2. Learned panel counsel appearing for the revenue has made available copy of the Circular bearing number 17/2019 dated 08.08.2019 whereunder monetary limit for filing appeals before this Court under Section 260A of Income Tax Act, 1961, has been fixed as one Crore and above. 3. In the light of said monetary limit fixed, when impugned order perused along with

THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX vs. M/S CANARA BANK

In the result, the appeals are dismissed

Bench: ALOK ARADHE,H.T. NARENDRA PRASAD

14A are satisfied in the case of the assessee?’ 2. Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal is right in law in setting 5 aside the disallowances of deprecation on HTM category of investments by erroneously holding that value of investments made pursuant to SLR requirements of RBI can be allowed as a deduction

THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX vs. M/S. CANARA BANK

In the result, the appeals are dismissed

Bench: ALOK ARADHE,H.T. NARENDRA PRASAD

14A are satisfied in the case of the assessee?’ 2. Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal is right in law in setting 5 aside the disallowances of deprecation on HTM category of investments by erroneously holding that value of investments made pursuant to SLR requirements of RBI can be allowed as a deduction

THE COMMISSIONER OF WEALTH TAX vs. SRI M R SEETHARAM

In the result, the appeals are dismissed

Bench: RAVI MALIMATH,ASHOK S.KINAGI

14A are satisfied in the case of the assessee?’ 2. Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal is right in law in setting 5 aside the disallowances of deprecation on HTM category of investments by erroneously holding that value of investments made pursuant to SLR requirements of RBI can be allowed as a deduction

PR COMMISSIONER OF vs. KARNATAKA STATE INDUSTRIAL INFRASTRUCTURE

In the result, we find no merit in the

Bench: ALOK ARADHE,H.T. NARENDRA PRASAD

capital gain which are to be considered for the purpose of computing tax liability under Section 115JB of the Act by following the decision of this Court in the case of THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX AND ANR. vs. MSR AND SONS INVESTMENTS LIMITED passed in ITA No.3189/2005 dated 14.9.2011 even when the said decision has not reached finality

PR COMMISSIONER OF vs. KARNATAKA STATE INDUSTRIAL INFRASTRUCTURE

In the result, we find no merit in the

Bench: ALOK ARADHE,H.T. NARENDRA PRASAD

capital gain which are to be considered for the purpose of computing tax liability under Section 115JB of the Act by following the decision of this Court in the case of THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX AND ANR. vs. MSR AND SONS INVESTMENTS LIMITED passed in ITA No.3189/2005 dated 14.9.2011 even when the said decision has not reached finality

PR COMMISSIONER OF vs. KARNATAKA STATE INDUSTRIAL INFRASTRUCTURE

In the result, we find no merit in the

Bench: ALOK ARADHE,H.T. NARENDRA PRASAD

capital gain which are to be considered for the purpose of computing tax liability under Section 115JB of the Act by following the decision of this Court in the case of THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX AND ANR. vs. MSR AND SONS INVESTMENTS LIMITED passed in ITA No.3189/2005 dated 14.9.2011 even when the said decision has not reached finality

PR COMMISSIONER OF vs. KARNATAKA STATE INDUSTRIAL INFRASTRUCTURE

In the result, we find no merit in the

Bench: ALOK ARADHE,H.T. NARENDRA PRASAD

capital gain which are to be considered for the purpose of computing tax liability under Section 115JB of the Act by following the decision of this Court in the case of THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX AND ANR. vs. MSR AND SONS INVESTMENTS LIMITED passed in ITA No.3189/2005 dated 14.9.2011 even when the said decision has not reached finality

THE COMMISSIONER vs. M/S VIJAYA BANK

Bench: ALOK ARADHE,H.T. NARENDRA PRASAD

14A of the Act. A sum of Rs.3,43,28,658/- being 5% thereof was estimated as expenditure incurred for earning such income. 3. The assessee, thereupon, filed an appeal. The Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) by an order dated 31.05.2011 partly allowed the appeal. Being aggrieved, the revenue as well as the assessee filed appeals before the Income

M/S CANARA BANK BSCA SECTION vs. THE ASST COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE-11(2)

Bench: N.KUMAR,RATHNAKALA

14A of the Act to 2% of - 7 - the gross receipts on account of dividends and interest which are exempt following earlier order of his own in the assessee’s case for the assessment year 1998-99. The said order was challenged before the Tribunal. The Tribunal confirmed the said order, in view of the fact that for the earlier

SHRI. SHANKARLAL GILADA vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER,

Bench: G.NARENDAR,M.NAGAPRASANNA

14A of the Act would not arise to the facts of the case at all. 11. Learned counsel appearing for the revenue would seek to justify the orders passed by the Assessment Officer and that of the Tribunal and would submit that the issue that is formed for consideration before this Court stands completely covered by the judgment

PR COMMISSIONER OF vs. M/S WIPRO LIMITED

In the result, the appeal is disposed of in terms

Bench: ALOK ARADHE,H.T. NARENDRA PRASAD

14A of the Act set aside the finding recorded by the Assessing Officer and remitted the matter to the Assessing Officer to re-examine the issue in the light of order passed by the tribunal in assessee's own case as well as in DCIT vs. M.N.DASTUR CO. PVT. LTD. in I.T.A. No.94/bang/2014. The tribunal also allowed