THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX vs. M/S. CHAITANYA PROPERTIES PVT LTD

Bench: S.SUJATHA,VINEET KOTHARI

Dividend income. The disallowance under Section 14A cannot be a wild guesswork bereft of ground realities. It has to have a Date of Order 15-06-2018, ITA.Nos.569/2015 & 229/2016 The Commissioner of Income-tax, CIT (A) and Another -Vs.- M/s. Chaitanya Properties Pvt. Ltd., 13/14 reasonable and close nexus with the factually incurred expenses. It is not deemed

OFFICIAL LIQUIDATOR

Appeal is dismissed

Bench: S SUNIL DUTT YADAV

DEEMS FIT TO GRANT IN THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE AND EQUITY. THIS APPEAL, COMING ON FOR HEARING, THIS DAY, P.S.DINESH KUMAR J., DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: ORDER This appeal challenging the order dated 10.06.2019 in ITA No.2820/Bang/2018 dated 10.06.2019 passed by the - 3 - ITA No. 02 of 2020 Income Tax Appellate Tribunal1, Bengaluru

THE PR.COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIT(A) vs. M/S. ADVAITH MOTORS PVT LTD.,

Bench: S.SUJATHA,VINEET KOTHARI

Dividend income. The disallowance under Section 14A cannot be a wild guesswork bereft of ground realities. It has to have a reasonable and close nexus with the factually Date of Judgment 12-06-2018 I.T.A.No.342/2016 The Pr. Commissioner of Income-Tax, CIT (A) & Anr. Vs. M/s. Advaith Motors Pvt. Ltd., 8/9 incurred expenses. It is not deemed

PR.COMMISSIONER OF INCOMETAX-2 vs. M/S.EYGBS (INDIA) PVT LTD

Bench: CHIEF JUSTICE,C M JOSHI

dividends during the previous year relevant to the assessment years and is exempt from charge of tax. The Assessee had claimed that it had not incurred any expenditure for incurring exempt income and the investments made had been liquidated during the year. However, the AO made an adhoc disallowance of 10% of the exempt income under Section

HINDUSTAN AERONAUTICS LIMITED vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER

In the result, the order of the

Bench: ALOK ARADHE,H.T. NARENDRA PRASAD

DEEMS FIT TO PASS ON THE FACTS AND IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE AND IN THE INTERESTS OF JUSTICE AND EQUITY. THESE ITAs COMING ON FOR HEARING, THIS DAY, ALOK ARADHE J., DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: JUDGMENT I.T.A.No.404/2016 has been filed by the assessee, whereas, I.T.A.No.468/2016 has been filed by the revenue under Section 260A of the Income

THE PR COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX vs. M/S HINDUSTAN AERONAUTICS LTD

In the result, the order of the

Bench: ALOK ARADHE,H.T. NARENDRA PRASAD

DEEMS FIT TO PASS ON THE FACTS AND IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE AND IN THE INTERESTS OF JUSTICE AND EQUITY. THESE ITAs COMING ON FOR HEARING, THIS DAY, ALOK ARADHE J., DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: JUDGMENT I.T.A.No.404/2016 has been filed by the assessee, whereas, I.T.A.No.468/2016 has been filed by the revenue under Section 260A of the Income

M/S FIDELITY BUSINESS SERVICES INDIA PVT LTD vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX

Bench: S.SUJATHA,VINEET KOTHARI

deemed to be dividend in terms of section 2(22)(e) of the Act, although the said provision would not be applicable? 5. We re-formulate the substantial question of law which we propose to answer and on which the arguments were heard by us, in the following manner:- “Whether the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal has power under Section

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

Bench: S.SUJATHA,VINEET KOTHARI

deemed to constitute CHAMUNDI as partner, or a joint venture or a legal representative of DIAGEO Date of Judgment 25-09-2018 I.T.A.No.155/2016 and connected matters The Pr. Commissioner of Income Tax & Ors. Vs. M/s. Chamundi Winery and Distillery 30/137 INDIA, or to create any fiduciary relationship between CHAMUNDI and DIAGEO INDIA. Both Parties acknowledge that they are personally

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

Bench: S.SUJATHA,VINEET KOTHARI

deemed to constitute CHAMUNDI as partner, or a joint venture or a legal representative of DIAGEO Date of Judgment 25-09-2018 I.T.A.No.155/2016 and connected matters The Pr. Commissioner of Income Tax & Ors. Vs. M/s. Chamundi Winery and Distillery 30/137 INDIA, or to create any fiduciary relationship between CHAMUNDI and DIAGEO INDIA. Both Parties acknowledge that they are personally

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

Bench: N.KUMAR,RATHNAKALA

dividends and interest for which the assessee has to incur any expenditure. This is the consequence of computerization, online transaction through NEFT[National Electronic Fund Transfer], RTGS [Real Time Gross Settlement] and also DEMAT Accounts. The assessing authority should take note of these developments in deciding whether any expenditure is incurred in earning the said income. The discussion

PR,COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX vs. M/S SUBRAMANYA CONSTRUCTIONS

In the result, we do not find any merit in these

Bench: ALOK ARADHE,M.G.S. KAMAL

DEEMED FIT, IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE. THESE I.T.As. COMING ON FOR HEARING, THIS DAY, ALOK ARADHE J., DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: JUDGMENT These appeals under Section 260A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as the Act for short) have been preferred by the revenue against common order dated 20.02.2015 passed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (hereinafter

PR. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX vs. M/S SUBRAMANYA CONSTRUCTIONS

In the result, we do not find any merit in these

Bench: ALOK ARADHE,M.G.S. KAMAL

DEEMED FIT, IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE. THESE I.T.As. COMING ON FOR HEARING, THIS DAY, ALOK ARADHE J., DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: JUDGMENT These appeals under Section 260A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as the Act for short) have been preferred by the revenue against common order dated 20.02.2015 passed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (hereinafter

ESSILOR INDIA PVT LTD vs. THE DEPUTY

In the result, the order passed by the Tribunal dated 07

Bench: ALOK ARADHE,SHIVASHANKAR AMARANNAVAR

DEEMS FIT TO PASS ON THE FACTS AND IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE. THIS I.T.A. COMING ON FOR HEARING, THIS DAY, ALOK ARADHE J., DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: JUDGMENT This appeal under Section 260-A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’, for short) has been filed by the assessee. The subject matter

ESSILOR INDIA PVT LTD vs. THE DEPUTY

The appeal is disposed of

Bench: ALOK ARADHE,SHIVASHANKAR AMARANNAVAR

DEEMS FIT TO PASS ON THE FACTS AND IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE. THIS I.T.A. COMING ON FOR HEARING, THIS DAY, ALOK ARADHE J., DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: JUDGMENT This appeal under Section 260-A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’, for short) has been filed by the assessee. The subject matter

THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX vs. M/S CHEMSWORTH PVT LTD

In the result, we do not find any merit in the

Bench: ALOK ARADHE,H.T. NARENDRA PRASAD

dividend income, which was exempt from tax. The Assessing Officer without examining the quantum of expenditure incurred by the assessee for earning the exempt income, proceeded to complete the assessment. It was further noticed that expenditure incurred for earning exempt income has to be disallowed under Section14A of the Act. 4 3. Thereupon, the Commissioner of Income Tax issued

PR. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX - 5 vs. M/S NAM ESTATES PRIVATE LIMITED

The appeal stands dismissed

Bench: SATISH CHANDRA SHARMA,S VISHWAJITH SHETTY

deemed intimation under sub- section (1) of section 143, as the case may be, and the provisions of section 154 shall, so far as may be, apply thereto: Provided that the credit of tax which was under dispute shall be allowed for the year in which such income is offered to tax or assessed to tax in India.” ITA 273/2019

PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX - 7 vs. M/S UNIVERSAL POWER TRANSFORMERS PVT LTD

The appeal stands dismissed accordingly

Bench: SATISH CHANDRA SHARMA,RAVI V HOSMANI

DEEMED FIT, SET ASDIE THE APPELLATE ORDER DATED 31.7.2019 PASSED BY THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, ‘A’ BENCH, BANGALORE IN ITA.NO.2799/BANG/2018, FOR ASSESSMENT YEAR 2012-2013, THIS ITA COMING ON FOR HEARING THIS DAY, SATISH CHANDRA SHARMA. J., DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: JUDGMENT The present appeal is arising out of a common order dated 31.7.2019 passed in ITA No.2511/2018

THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX vs. M/S. GOKALDAS IMAGES PVT.LTD

In the result, the appeal is disposed of

Bench: ALOK ARADHE,H.T. NARENDRA PRASAD

dividend company in this regard and therefore, the assessee is liable to tax on book profit in accordance with the provisions of Section 115JB of the Act. The Assessing Officer was directed to quantify if there are any losses to be carried forward after giving effect to the order passed by the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals). Accordingly, the appeal