THE PR COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX vs. M/S EXIDE LIFE INSURANCE COMPANY LTD

In the result, both the appeals stand dismissed

Bench: S.SUJATHA,RAVI V HOSMANI

disallowance of surplus from shareholders account treated as income from other sources by assessee by holding that surplus available both in Policy Holder’s 6 Account and share Holder’s account is to be consolidated and net surplus only to be taxed as income from business

THE PR COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX vs. M/S EXIDE LIFE INSURANCE CO LTD

In the result, both the appeals stand dismissed

Bench: S.SUJATHA,RAVI V HOSMANI

disallowance of surplus from shareholders account treated as income from other sources by assessee by holding that surplus available both in Policy Holder’s 6 Account and share Holder’s account is to be consolidated and net surplus only to be taxed as income from business

COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (CENTRAL) vs. M/S. BAGMANE DEVELOPERS PVT LTD

Bench: ARAVIND KUMAR,JAYANT PATEL

business income’ as per the returns filed earlier i.e. prior to the search proceedings and he, therefore, submitted that the Tribunal has not properly considered the evidence on record and it ought to have disallowed

M/S BAGMANE DEVELOPERS PVT LTD vs. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX

Bench: ARAVIND KUMAR,JAYANT PATEL

business income’ as per the returns filed earlier i.e. prior to the search proceedings and he, therefore, submitted that the Tribunal has not properly considered the evidence on record and it ought to have disallowed

M/S HUBLI ELECTRICITY SUPPLY CO. vs. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER

In the result, the appeals are disposed of as

Bench: JOHN MICHAEL CUNHA,S.SUJATHA

disallowed the income of the claim made inasmuch as following items are concerned:- i) Interest income ii) Profit on sale of stores iii) Miscellaneous receipts from trading iv) Rental income v) Commission for collection of electric duty vi) Penalty recovered from suppliers/contracts : 9 : vii) Unclaimed balance and difference between WDV/book value of released asset. viii) Miscellaneous recovery from employees

THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX vs. M/S. IBC KNOWLEDGE PARK PVT. LTD.,

In the result, the appeals filed by the Revenue

Bench: B.V.NAGARATHNA,JAYANT PATEL

disallowed as it was not meant for management of construction, but on other expenses, such as advertisement, sales promotion etc. Therefore, the income had to be assessed under the head income from other sources. The Tribunal held that the income had to be assessed as business

THE COMMISIONER OF INCOME-TAX vs. M/S IBC KNOWLEDGE PARK PVT LTD

In the result, the appeals filed by the Revenue

Bench: B.V.NAGARATHNA,JAYANT PATEL

disallowed as it was not meant for management of construction, but on other expenses, such as advertisement, sales promotion etc. Therefore, the income had to be assessed under the head income from other sources. The Tribunal held that the income had to be assessed as business

THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX vs. M/S. IBC KNOWLEDGE PARK PVT. LTD.,

In the result, the appeals filed by the Revenue

Bench: B.V.NAGARATHNA,JAYANT PATEL

disallowed as it was not meant for management of construction, but on other expenses, such as advertisement, sales promotion etc. Therefore, the income had to be assessed under the head income from other sources. The Tribunal held that the income had to be assessed as business

INGERSOLL-RAND (INDIA) LIMITED vs. THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX 1

In the result, the appeals are

Bench: ALOK ARADHE,M.NAGAPRASANNA

income of Rs.4,69,800/- and disallowed the sum of Rs.23,490/-. The Assessing officer also disallowed EDP expenses to the tune of Rs.60,79,380/- by treating the same as capital expenditure. The Assessing Officer also disallowed a sum of Rs.10 Lakhs out of the expenditure incurred for entertainment, business

THE PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CIT(A) vs. SHRI.S.S. BAKKESH

In the result, both the appeals filed by the Revenue are

Bench: D K SINGH,VENKATESH NAIK T

business must be included in the assessee's gross total income. b. Waste utilisation -The deduction applies to profits from the collection and processing of bio-degradable waste. c. Purpose -The waste must be used for a qualifying purpose, such as, generating energy and creating organic fertilizers. 14. In the instant cases, the Assessing Officer disallowed

M/S. KARNATAKA INSTRADE CORPORATION LIMITED vs. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX

The appeal is allowed in part

Bench: B.MANOHAR,VINEET SARAN

Income- Tax, Bangalore V/S Lawrence D’souza) held that though the business was stopped in the year 1994, the expenses are incurred in connection with the business. This Court allowed the deduction holding that the expenses are continued to be incurred in connection with the business, until it is sold. The Tribunal denied the expenditure solely on the ground that

THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX vs. M/S MOTOROLA INDIA ELECTRONICS (P) LTD

Bench: N.KUMAR,RATHNAKALA

business of the assessee consists of development and export of software. The assessing authority did not agree with the said contention and therefore, he disallowed the exemption claimed for the assessment year 2001 – 02. Aggrieved by the said order, the assessee preferred an appeal to the Commissioner of Income

PR. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX vs. M/S CHAMUNDI WINERY AND DISTILLERY

Bench: S.SUJATHA,VINEET KOTHARI

income earned out of the said liquor business will still be taxable in the hands of the Respondent Assessee CHAMUNDI ? 4. The brief factual matrix of the case is as under:- 5. The Assessing Authority in the first instance in all these five Assessment Years, A.Y.2008-09 to 2012- 13, disallowed

THE PR. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (4) vs. M/S CHAMUNDI WINERY AND DISTILLERY

Bench: S.SUJATHA,VINEET KOTHARI

income earned out of the said liquor business will still be taxable in the hands of the Respondent Assessee CHAMUNDI ? 4. The brief factual matrix of the case is as under:- 5. The Assessing Authority in the first instance in all these five Assessment Years, A.Y.2008-09 to 2012- 13, disallowed

KARNATAKA STATE BEVERAGES CORPORTION LIMITED vs. THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX

Bench: The Hon’Ble Mr. Justice Anand Byrareddy Writ Petition No.12872 Of 2013 (T-It) Connected With Writ Petition No.14687 Of 2014 (T-It), Writ Petition No.15910 Of 2015 (T-It) & Writ Petition No.17514 Of 2015 (T-It) In W.P.No.12872 Of 2013 Between: Karnataka State Beverages Corporation Limited, Represented By It’S Executive Director (Finance), Sri. Shrikant B Vanahalli, Aged About 57 Years, No.78, Seethalakshmi Towers, Mission Road, Bangalore 560 027. …Petitioner

Disallowance of certain fee, charge, etc. in the case of State Government Undertakings: 12.1 The provisions of Section 40 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 before its amendment by the Act, specifies the amounts which shall not be deducted in computing the income chargeable under the head “Profits and gains of business

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

The appeal stands disposed of as

Bench: SATISH CHANDRA SHARMA,R. NATARAJ

business income ignoring Section 45(2) which requires investments are to be treated as Stock in Trade? 6. Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal is right in law in setting aside the rejection of claim of assessee as deduction on account of unrealised gains on revaluation of forward contracts by relying

SHRI. SHANKARLAL GILADA vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER,

Bench: G.NARENDAR,M.NAGAPRASANNA

disallowed. If an expenditure incurred has no causal connection with the exempted income, then such an expenditure would obviously be treated as not related to the income that is exempted from tax, and such expenditure would be allowed as business

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

business are borrowed funds and recorded a perverse finding? 4 (iv) Whether the Appellate Authorities committed an error in not taking into consideration that the income earned is exempt and the expenditure incurred for earning the exempt income is not allowable under Section 14A of the Act and the burden of establishing non-incurring of expenditure was on the assessee