PR. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX vs. SMT. G. LAKSHMI ARUNA

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. 15. 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

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

The appeal is dismissed

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

capital asset. It merely enhances the productivity or the efficiency and therefore, it has to be treated as a Revenue expenditure. 8. We may record that in Oriental Bank of Commerce Vs. Additional Commissioner of Income-tax5 has held as follows: " 7. The mere circumstance that the depreciation rate is spelt out in the Schedule to the Income

THE PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER vs. M/S OBULAPURAM MINING

Bench: K.SOMASHEKAR,UMESH M ADIGA

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 of business or profession. Explanation. - For the removal of doubts

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

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

The appeal is allowed in part

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

2. The assessee is in appeal under Section 260-A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (for short, ‘1961 Act’) challenging the order passed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ‘B’ Bench, Bengaluru (for short, ‘the Tribunal’) in IT(IT)A.No.618/Bang/2023 dated 04.12.2023 for the assessment year 2011-12. 3. The assessee filed return of income for the assessment

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

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

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

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

Bench: KRISHNA S.DIXIT,P.KRISHNA BHAT

2 251 ITR 84 - 10 - ITA No. 383 of 2016 (iii) It is profitable to see what Kanga & Palkhivala’s ‘Law and Practice of Income Tax’, Vol. II, Eleventh Edn., Lexis Nexus at pages 3316 – 17 states: “…A question is a substantial question of law if: (i) it directly or indirectly affects substantial rights of the parties

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

Bench: KRISHNA S.DIXIT,PRADEEP SINGH YERUR

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 professions shall be allowed in computing the income chargeable under the head “Profits and gains of business or profession”. (c) The Explanation added by the Parliament to sub-section

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

Bench: KRISHNA S.DIXIT,PRADEEP SINGH YERUR

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 professions shall be allowed in computing the income chargeable under the head “Profits and gains of business or profession”. (c) The Explanation added by the Parliament to sub-section

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

Bench: S.SUJATHA,RAVI V HOSMANI

2. Disallowance of Foreign Exchange loss[FCNR] Rs.1,80,22,000/- 3. Disallowance of Bad debts/advances Rs.1,09,93,814/- - 6 - 6. On appeal before the CIT[A], the order passed by the Assessing Officer was confirmed. On further appeal before the Tribunal by the assessee herein, the Tribunal allowed the appeal allowing the deductions under these heads. Being aggrieved

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

2 Hereinafter referred to as the ‘Tribunal’ 3 Hereinafter referred to as ‘AY’ 3 compensation paid in its profit and loss account. In response to the queries raised by the Assessing Officer4, the assessee placed on record that it had entered into an agreement with M/s. Manipal Infocom Pvt. Ltd.,5 for sale of its rights in respect of four

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