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

6 2nd Floor, TTMC A Block, BMTC Complex, K.H.Road, Shantinagar, Bangalore 560 001. …RESPONDENTS (By Shri Jeevan J Neeralgi, Advocate for Respondent Nos. 1and 2; Shri Madhusudhan R Naik, Advocate General for Shri S.V.Giri Kumar, Additional Government Advocate for Respondent Nos. 3 and 4) This Writ Petition filed under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India praying

THE PR. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX vs. M/S. TE CONNECTIVITY INDIA PVT. LTD.,

Accordingly dispose of the appeal as allowed

Bench: ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE,S RACHAIAH

vii. JCIT -Vs.- Cognizant Technology Solutions India (P.) Ltd. [(2023) 146 taxmann.com 197 (SC)]. 7. That apart it is his submission that, there is no error in the order of the Assessing Officer as is evident from the submissions made. The conclusion drawn by the PCIT in the order under Section 263 that a disallowance under Section

COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-III vs. M/S SYNDICATE BANK

The appeals are disposed of

Bench: ALOK ARADHE,RAVI V HOSMANI

6 2. For the facility of reference, facts from ITA No. 258/2011 are being referred to – The assessee is a Public Limited Company engaged in banking business. The assessee filed return of income on 24.11.2003 along with audit report under Section 44AB of the Act, declaring income of Rs.293,25,57,628/- for Assessment year 2003-04. The Return

M/S HAJEE A.P.BAVA & COMPANY vs. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX

In the result, the appeal is

Bench: ALOK ARADHE,M.NAGAPRASANNA

disallowed. 3. The appellant filed an appeal before the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals). The Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) by an order dated 20.09.2017 inter alia held that assessee has only created a provision for doubtful entry in the books of 6 accounts and since it is following a double entry system of accounting, corresponding entries have been made

THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX vs. ING VYSYA BANK LTD

In the result, this appeal is allowed in part,

Bench: B.MANOHAR,D.V.SHYLENDRA KUMAR

vii-a) had not been complied with by the assessee. (4) Whether the Tribunal was correct in holding that the Assessing Officer had correctly disallowed the claim made by the assessee regarding entertainment expenditure of Rs.16,21,016/- on the basis that 50% should be treated a expenditure relating to staff and cannot be brought 4 under the rigor

THE COMMISSIONER vs. M/S VIJAYA BANK

Bench: ALOK ARADHE,H.T. NARENDRA PRASAD

vii-a) 5 of the Act. The Assessing Officer disallowed the depreciation claimed on securities classified as ‘Held to Maturity’ and further held that the assessee had earned aggregate sum of Rs.68,65,73,177/-, which is exempt under various sub-Sections of Section 10 of the Act and disallowed the aforesaid amount in terms of Section

THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, vs. M/S CORPORATION BANK

In the result, the third substantial question of law is also answered

Bench: ALOK ARADHE,H.T. NARENDRA PRASAD

disallowance under Section 36(1)(vii) of the Act. 3. The assessee thereupon filed an appeal before the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) who by an order dated 18.07.2013 partly allowed the appeal preferred by the assessee. The revenue thereupon filed an appeal before the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (hereinafter referred to as 'the tribunal' for short). The tribunal

XIAOMI TECHNOLOGY INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX

In the result, I pass the following:

Bench: The Hon'Ble Mr.Justice S.R.Krishna Kumar

disallowed. On 10.08.2022, petitioner submitted a detailed response along with documents and contested the said Notice and proceedings. - 6 - 2.3 On 11.08.2022, upon obtaining approval from the 3rd respondent, the 1st respondent passed the impugned order under Section 281B of the I.T.Act provisionally attaching the subject fixed deposits of the petitioner in a sum of INR 3,700 crores

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

vii) of the Act and hence provisions of Section 41(1)/41(4) of the Act are not attracted on a subsequent recovery of the 3 written off debt, when the provision created under Section 36(1)(viia) of the Act is allowed as a deduction and recorded a perverse finding? (ii) Whether the Appellate Authorities were correct in holding

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

In the result, the appeals are partly allowed

Bench: B.MANOHAR,DILIP B.BHOSALE

6. In all the three appeals, the following question is common: A-11. Whether the Tribunal was correct in holding that the expenses incurred by the assessee for community development is an allowable business expenditure? 7. The respondent-assessee is a Public Limited Company incorporated under the provisions of the Companies Act, 1956. Registered office of the respondent- assessee

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

The appeal stands dismissed

Bench: SATISH CHANDRA SHARMA,V SRISHANANDA

disallowance made under Section 40(a)(1) of the Act for the sum of 5 Rs.7,29,13,934/- by holding that the income of the non-residents by way of commission cannot be considered as accrued or arisen or deemed to accrue or arise in India as the services of such agents were rendered or utilized outside India

THE PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER vs. M/S OBULAPURAM MINING

Bench: K.SOMASHEKAR,UMESH M ADIGA

VII.—The provisions of this section shall apply to a proceeding for the execution of a decree and references in this section to any suit, issue or former suit shall be construed as references, respectively, to a proceeding for the execution of the decree, question arising in such proceeding and a former proceeding for the execution of that decree. Explanation

M/S NAM ESTATES PVT. LTD. vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER

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

Bench: ALOK ARADHE,H.T. NARENDRA PRASAD

6. We have considered the submissions made by learned counsel and have perused the record. Before proceeding further, it is apposite to take note of Section 40A(3) of the Act and Rule 6DD of the Rules, which read as under: 40A(3) Where the assessee incurs any expenditure in respect of which payment or aggregate of payments made

M/S BIG BAGS INTERNATIONAL (P) LTD vs. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX

In the result, the order of the tribunal to the

Bench: ALOK ARADHE,H.T. NARENDRA PRASAD

vii) of the Act was rightly disallowed. It is also submitted that a finding of fact has been recorded by the Tribunal that the pre-requisite conditions mentioned under Section 36(2) of the Act have not been complied with, therefore, no substantial question of law arises for consideration in this appeal. It is also urged that without prejudice

THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX vs. M/S DAVANGERE DISTRICT CENTRAL CO-OPERATIVE BANK

In the result, we do not find any merit in this appeal, the same fails

Bench: SATISH CHANDRA SHARMA,V SRISHANANDA

disallowed Rs.17,38,222 under section 40(a)(ia) by considering the available materials on record as well as provisions of the Act"?" 4. The learned counsel appearing for the appellants- revenue has fairly submitted before this court that so far as substantial question Nos.3 & 4 are concerned, he is not pressing for the same. 5. Learned counsel

MANIPAL HEALTH SYSTEMS

In the result, we do not find any merit in this appeal, the same fails

Bench: ARAVIND KUMAR

disallowed Rs.17,38,222 under section 40(a)(ia) by considering the available materials on record as well as provisions of the Act"?" 4. The learned counsel appearing for the appellants- revenue has fairly submitted before this court that so far as substantial question Nos.3 & 4 are concerned, he is not pressing for the same. 5. Learned counsel

THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX vs. SYNDICATE BANK

Bench: ALOK ARADHE,RAVI V HOSMANI

vii) miscellaneous provision cannot be added back in accordance with Explanation of Section 115JA of the Act in the light of the judgment of the Apex court in H.C.L. Comnet when there is diminution in the value of assets as contended by the assessee and in view of the retrospective amendment to 5 Explanation (g) to Section 115JA

THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX vs. M/S.MILLENNIA DEVELOPERS (P) LTD

Bench: The Hon'Ble Mr. Justice Ravi Malimath

disallowed the claim for bad debts. Aggrieved by the same, an appeal was filed before the CIT (Appeals)-VI, Bangalore, which was allowed. The claim of the assessee was allowed and the addition was deleted. Aggrieved by the same, the Revenue filed the appeal before the Tribunal, wherein the appeal was dismissed. Hence, the present appeal. 4 2. ITA No.734