PR. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX vs. SHRI. GALI JANARDHANA REDDY

Bench: K.SOMASHEKAR,UMESH M ADIGA

capital gains earned thereon had not been declared for tax. Accordingly, a sum of Rs.5,25,000/- was brought to tax. 14.Further at paragraph 8 of the order relating to bogus transportation expenses claimed for the assessment years 2009- 10 and 2010-11, the assessing officer has brought on record that the appellant has claimed transportation expenses for the years

THE PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER vs. M/S OBULAPURAM MINING

Bench: K.SOMASHEKAR,UMESH M ADIGA

1) Any Expenditure (not being expenditure of the nature described in Section 30 to 36 and not being in the nature of capital expenditure or personal expenses of the assessee, laid out or expended wholly and exclusively for the purpose of the business or profession shall be allowed in computing the income chargeable under the head "Profits and gains

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

1) of the Act provides that any expenditure not being expenditure of the nature described in Sections 30 to 36 and not being in the nature of capital expenditure or personal expenses of the assessee, laid out or expended wholly and exclusively for the purposes of the business or profession shall be allowed in computing the income chargeable under

PR. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-5 vs. M/S. PUMA SPORTS INDIA P., LTD.,

The appeal stands dismissed

Bench: SATISH CHANDRA SHARMA,V SRISHANANDA

36,680/-. The assessing authority passed an order under Section 143(3) read with Section 144(C)(13) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as ‘Act’) by making transfer pricing adjustment for Rs.4,16,65,106/- on the basis of the order passed under Section 92CA of the Act dated 24.10.2016. The assessing authority also made other

THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX vs. M/S ING VYSYA BANK LTD

The appeal is dismissed

Bench: P.S.DINESH KUMAR,C.M. POONACHA

gains is as per nationally accepted accounting standards; (vi) whether the system adopted by the assessee is fair and reasonable or is adopted only with a view to reducing the incidence of taxation. He further submitted that though the acquisition was in the year 2000, the valuation is made on April 1, 2003. It is not discernable from record whether

SHRI N G CHANDRA REDDY (HUF) vs. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF

The appeal is disposed of in the above terms

Bench: S.G.PANDIT,K. V. ARAVIND

1), BMTC BUILDING, 80 FEET ROAD, KORAMANGALA, 6TH BLOCK, BANGALORE-560 095. …RESPONDENT (BY SRI E.I. SANMATHI, SENIOR STANDING COUNSEL) THIS ITA / INCOME TAX APPEAL UNDER SECTION 260-A OF INCOME TAX ACT 1961, ARISING OUT OF ORDER DATED 20/07/2016 PASSED IN ITA No.390/BANG/2015, FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2005-06 PRAYING TO FORMULATE THE SUBSTANTIAL QUESTIONS OF LAW STATED ABOVE

THE PR COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX vs. SHRI.M. ABDUL ZAHID

Bench: KRISHNA S.DIXIT,PRADEEP SINGH YERUR

gains, vide Calcutta Company Ltd. Vs. CIT: 37 ITR 1 (SC); this proposition emerges from a plain reading of Section 37(1) of the Act which has the following text: “37. (1) Any expenditure (not being expenditure of the nature described in sections 30 to 36 and not being in the nature of capital

THE PR COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, vs. M/S JAY MINERALS

Bench: KRISHNA S.DIXIT,PRADEEP SINGH YERUR

gains, vide Calcutta Company Ltd. Vs. CIT: 37 ITR 1 (SC); this proposition emerges from a plain reading of Section 37(1) of the Act which has the following text: “37. (1) Any expenditure (not being expenditure of the nature described in sections 30 to 36 and not being in the nature of capital

PR COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX vs. M/S ENNOBLE CONSTRUCTION

Bench: KRISHNA S.DIXIT,P.KRISHNA BHAT

1) section 37, which has the following text: “Any expenditure (not being expenditure of the nature described in section 30 to 36 and not being in the nature of capital expenditure or personal expenses of the assessee) laid out or expended wholly and exclusively for the purpose of the business or profession shall be allowed in computing the income chargeable

PR COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX vs. M/S UNITED SPIRITS LTD

Bench: S.SUJATHA,RAVI V HOSMANI

36(1)(iii) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (for short ‘the Act’) when the interest would not have been payable to banks, if funds were not provided to subsidiaries?,” the Hon’ble - 12 - Apex Court held that, the issue raises a pure question of fact. The High Court has noted the finding of the Tribunal that the interest free

THE PR. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX vs. M/S CANARA HOUSING DEVELOPMENT COMPANY

In the result, the above appeal is allowed and the

Bench: S.G.PANDIT,C.M. POONACHA

1)Any expenditure (not being expenditure of the nature described in sections 30 to 36 and not being in the nature of capital expenditure or personal expenses of the assessee), laid out or expended wholly and exclusively for the purposes of the business or profession shall be allowed in computing the income chargeable under the head "Profits and gains

THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX vs. M/S URBAN LADDER HOME DECOR SOLUTIONS PVT LTD

Appeals are dismissed

Bench: V KAMESWAR RAO,S RACHAIAH

gains derived from the alienation of any such right or property which are contingent on the productivity, use, or disposition thereof ; and (b) payments of any kind received as consideration for the use of, or the right to use, any industrial, commercial, or scientific equipment, other than payments derived by an enterprise described in paragraph 1 of Article 8 (Shipping

MR. DEBARSHI SENGUPTA vs. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX

The appeal is allowed in part

Bench: S.G.PANDIT,K. V. ARAVIND

1 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:36973-DB ITA No. 148 of 2024 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 16TH DAY OF SEPTEMBER, 2025 PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S.G.PANDIT AND THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE K. V. ARAVIND INCOME TAX APPEAL NO. 148 OF 2024 BETWEEN: MR. DEBARSHI SENGUPTA S/O SHRI DILIP KUMAR

M/S BEST TRADING & AGENCIES LTD vs. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX

In the result, the orders passed by the

Bench: ALOK ARADHE,H.T. NARENDRA PRASAD

36,836/- and total income of Rs.2,97,239/- being income from other sources. The return of income was selected for scrutiny and a notice under Section 143(2) of the Act was issued to the assessee. 5. The Assessing Officer passed an order of assessment on 30.11.2007 under Section 143(3) of the Act and disallowed the claim

COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX vs. M.R.SAMPANGIRAMAIAH

Bench: P.S.DINESH KUMAR,C.M. POONACHA

capital gains tax, etc., the official figure should be lesser. In a sense, to that extent, it is a case of tax avoidance which is culpable both legally and morally. One cannot gainfully argue that it is a case of tax planning, intent being corrupt. However, that has been done at the instance of the 1st defendant, at whose hands

SHRI. SHANKARLAL GILADA vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER,

Bench: G.NARENDAR,M.NAGAPRASANNA

36. The theory of apportionment of expenditures between taxable and non- taxable (sic income) has, in principle, been now widened under Section 14-A.” 44. The Delhi High Court, therefore, correctly observed that prior to introduction of Section 14-A of the Act, the law was that when an assessee had a composite and indivisible business which had elements

M/S BANGALORE PHARMACEUTICAL vs. DY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX

Appeal is disposed of;

Bench: P.S.DINESH KUMAR,T.G. SHIVASHANKARE GOWDA

gains of business and profession"? 2. Whether the Tribunal in law as well as facts correct in restricting the deduction for interest on borrowed funds u/s 24 only for the period after the building was let out, while clause (b) of Section 24 permits deduction of interest payable on borrowed capital during the previous year? 3. Whether the Tribunal