CORPORATION BANK vs. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER

Accordingly, the petitions are allowed

Bench: The Hon’Ble Mr. Justice Anand Byrareddy

disallow an interest expense of a large sum of money. The above reassessment proceedings having been initiated on a mere

KARNATAKA BANK LTD vs. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME -TAX

Accordingly, the petition is allowed in

Bench: The Hon’Ble Mr. Justice Anand Byrareddy

disallow an interest expense of a large sum of money. The above reassessment proceedings having been initiated on a mere

CORPORATION BANK vs. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX

Accordingly, the petitions are allowed

Bench: The Hon’Ble Mr. Justice Anand Byrareddy

disallow an interest expense of a large sum of money. The above reassessment proceedings having been initiated on a mere

THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX vs. M/S MANDOVI MOTORS PVT., LTD.,

Appeal stands disposed of by answering the

Bench: B.MANOHAR,VINEET SARAN

reassessments is bad in law as no addition was made in respect of the disallowance of depreciation on which assessments

M/S BHORUKA POWER CORPORATION LTD vs. FORMERLY THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER

In the result, this appeal is allowed

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

reassessment order on 19.03.2013 under Section 143(3) read with Section 263 of the Act and disallowed a sum of Rs.54

THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX GULBARGA vs. M/S MANJUNATHA COTTON AND GINNING FACTORY

The appeals are dismissed

Bench: ARAVIND KUMAR,N.KUMAR

disallowed in computing the total income or loss of an assessee in any order of assessment or reassessment and the said

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

Bench: N.KUMAR,RATHNAKALA

disallowed in computing the total income or loss of an assessee in any order of assessment or reassessment and the said

SRI N GOVINDARAJU vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER

Appeal stands disposed of

Bench: S.SUJATHA,VINEET SARAN

reassessment. On merits, the assessee also challenged the adopting of fair market value at Rs.84/- per sq.ft., as well as disallowance

M/S. MFAR HOLDINGS PVT LTD vs. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX

The appeals are allowed in part setting aside

Bench: B M SHYAM PRASAD,T.M.NADAF

reassessment order dated 30.12.2010 is just a reiteration of the scrutiny assessment order dated 30.12.2008; [c] that the appellant's grievance as against disallowance

M/S THE KARNATAKA STATE CO-OPERATIVE APEX BANK vs. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX

In the result, the appeal is disposed of

Bench: ALOK ARADHE,HEMANT CHANDANGOUDAR

disallowed in the original assessment proceeding cannot be permitted to be reagitated on the assessment being reopened for bringing to tax certain income which had escaped assessment because the controversy on reassessment

HINDUSTAN AERONAUTICS vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER

In the result, the appeal is disposed of

Bench: ALOK ARADHE,H.T. NARENDRA PRASAD

reassessment order itself as being without jurisdiction, was justified in adjudicating on the merits and remanding the matter to the Assessing officer for computation of deduction under section 35(1)(iv) of the Act? 2. The Tribunal was right in holding that expenses to the extent of Rs.269,18,47,858/- incurred towards research and development is capital in nature

HINDUSTAN AERONAUTICS LIMITED vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER

In the result, the appeal is disposed of

Bench: ALOK ARADHE,H.T. NARENDRA PRASAD

reassessment order itself as being without jurisdiction, was justified in adjudicating on the merits and remanding the matter to the Assessing officer for computation of deduction under section 35(1)(iv) of the Act? 2. The Tribunal was right in holding that expenses to the extent of Rs.447,70,84,235/- incurred towards research and development is capital in nature

THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX vs. M/S MOOKAMBIKA DEVELOPERS

The appeals stand allowed to the extent as indicated above, and the matter is

Bench: VINEET SARAN,A.V.CHANDRASHEKARA

disallowance to the extent of Rs.53,00,000/- as made by the Assessing Officer ought to have been maintained. By the impugned order dated 27.3.2014, the 4 Tribunal held that the reopening of the assessment was bad in law as, according to the Tribunal, unless the Assessing Officer has made any addition on the issue of which satisfaction was recorded

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 income and the assessee could not have received a sum of Rs.78.25 lakh without

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 income and the assessee could not have received a sum of Rs.78.25 lakh without

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 income and the assessee could not have received a sum of Rs.78.25 lakh without

THE PR. COMMISIONER OF INCOME TAX vs. M/S. GMR INFRASTRUCTURE LTD

Appeals stand disposed of accordingly

Bench: S.SUJATHA,RAVI V HOSMANI

disallowance made under Section 40[a][ia] for non deduction of TDS on payments made to Director’s towards sitting fees by holding that - 16 - the amendment will apply for A.Y.2014-15 onwards?” In ITA No.381/2018: “1. Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law the Tribunal was correct in law in holding that incriminating

PR COMMISSIONER OF vs. M/S GMR HYDERABAD

Appeals stand disposed of accordingly

Bench: S.SUJATHA,RAVI V HOSMANI

disallowance made under Section 40[a][ia] for non deduction of TDS on payments made to Director’s towards sitting fees by holding that - 16 - the amendment will apply for A.Y.2014-15 onwards?” In ITA No.381/2018: “1. Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law the Tribunal was correct in law in holding that incriminating