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

The appeal stands disposed of as

Bench: SATISH CHANDRA SHARMA,R. NATARAJ

Section 115 JB towards expenditure on exempt income is purely academic in nature as the Tribunal has held that no disallowance

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

disallowance under Section 14A is not sustainable. In support of aforesaid submissions, reliance has been placed on decisions in 'CIT VS. WALFORT SHARE & STOCK BROKERS (P) LTD', (2010) 326 ITR 1 (SC), 'CIT VS. ALOM EXTRUSIONS LTD', (2009) 319 ITR 306 (SC), 'CIT V. SYNDICATE BANK', (2020) 115

THE COMMISSIONER vs. M/S VIJAYA BANK

Bench: ALOK ARADHE,H.T. NARENDRA PRASAD

115 JB of the Act, the tax was computed at Rs.12,60,62,901/-. Subsequently, the case was selected for scrutiny and Notices under Section 143(2) of the Act were issued on 05.09.2008 and 26.09.2008. The Assessing Officer by order dated 09.12.2009 inter alia disallowed

THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX vs. M/S. KINGFISHER FINVEST INDIA LTD

In the result, the appeals filed by the Revenue

Bench: ALOK ARADHE(ACJ),M.I.ARUN

115 TAXMANN.COM 287 (KAR), fairly submitted that sub-sections (2) and (3) were inserted in Section 14A by the Finance Act, 2006 and the aforesaid amendments are prospective in nature and apply in relation to the assessment year 2007-08. It is also pointed out that the assessment year in 6 question is 2008-09. It is further submitted that

THE COMMISSIONER vs. M/S CANARA BANK

In the result, we do not find merit in these

Bench: ALOK ARADHE,H.T. NARENDRA PRASAD

Section 115 JB towards expenditure on exempt income is purely academic in nature as the Tribunal has held that no disallowance

THE COMMISSIONER vs. M/S CANARA BANK

In the result, we do not find merit in these

Bench: ALOK ARADHE,H.T. NARENDRA PRASAD

Section 115 JB towards expenditure on exempt income is purely academic in nature as the Tribunal has held that no disallowance

THE COMMISSIONER vs. M/S CANARA BANK

In the result, the appeal stands disposed of in terms of

Bench: S.SUJATHA,RAVI V HOSMANI

Section 115 JB towards expenditure on exempt income is purely academic in nature as the Tribunal has held that no disallowances

THE PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER vs. M/S OBULAPURAM MINING

Bench: K.SOMASHEKAR,UMESH M ADIGA

disallowed. The jurisdictional error committed is the assessing officer’s jurisdiction is Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, 35 Central Circle-1(3), Bengaluru, whereas the jurisdictional assessing officer of the transporters is located in Andhra Pradesh. 31.Admittedly, as stated above the evidence of transporters recorded by the assessing officer outside the jurisdiction of Bengaluru has not been taken on record

PRL.COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX(CENTRAL) vs. M/S MICRO LABS LTD.,

In the result, the appeal is disposed of

Bench: ALOK ARADHE,H.T. NARENDRA PRASAD

disallowance of expenditure of Rs.8,91,76,870/- claimed as deduction under section 35(2)(AB) of the Act which were conducted outside the in-house R & D facility even when the AO has rightly held that clinical 3 trial expenditure is not eligible for weighted R & D deduction under section 35(2)(AB) and it will be eligible

SMT JAMUNA VERNEKAR vs. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX

In the result, the impugned order of the tribunal dated

Bench: ALOK ARADHE,R. NATARAJ

Section 2(22)(e) of the Act. Thus, the appeal preferred by the assessee was allowed. Being aggrieved by the aforesaid order of the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), the revenue filed an appeal before the Tribunal. The Tribunal, by an order dated 31.08.2012, allowed the appeal preferred 6 the revenue. In the aforesaid factual background, the appeal has been

SHRI NARAYAN RAO HEBRI vs. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX

The appeal stands dismissed

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

115 BBE. viii. This ground was raised in appeal memo before us though not decided by the lower authorities against the assessee, as it was not agitated before them by assessee. ix. It is disclosure of assessee made voluntarily, he did not retract it but owned it in ROI and also did not show or explain any error or omission

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

In the result, these appeals fail and are

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

section 115 JB of Act? 8. Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal erred in allowing the relief with regard to losses which were due to operational mistakes, related mainly to ATM transactions of customer and that loss is essential capital loss incurred for operational purposes? 9. Whether on the facts

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

In the result, these appeals fail and are

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

section 115 JB of Act? 8. Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal erred in allowing the relief with regard to losses which were due to operational mistakes, related mainly to ATM transactions of customer and that loss is essential capital loss incurred for operational purposes? 9. Whether on the facts

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

In the result, these appeals fail and are

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

section 115 JB of Act? 8. Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal erred in allowing the relief with regard to losses which were due to operational mistakes, related mainly to ATM transactions of customer and that loss is essential capital loss incurred for operational purposes? 9. Whether on the facts

THE PR COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX vs. M/S VSL MINING COMPANY PVT LTD

Appeal is dismissed as being

Bench: S.G.PANDIT,C.M. POONACHA

115,89,54,044/- and the balance tax payable at `44,31,32,567/-. 3. It is further forthcoming that a survey under Section 133A of the IT Act was conducted on 25.3.2008 and search under Section 132 of the IT Act was conducted on 1.4.2008 in respect of one Sri Manoj Kumar Jain5, wherein the Revenue alleges to have

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

disallowing interest on the ground that interest payments had not been debited to the profit and loss account and there is no direct nexus between the interest paid to term lenders and the interest earned from other sources. It is further submitted that the interest income accrued from the monies kept in the fixed deposits and nexus between the deposit

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

disallowing interest on the ground that interest payments had not been debited to the profit and loss account and there is no direct nexus between the interest paid to term lenders and the interest earned from other sources. It is further submitted that the interest income accrued from the monies kept in the fixed deposits and nexus between the deposit

WEST PALM DEVELOPMENTS LLP vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF

In the result, the order dated 14

Bench: ALOK ARADHE,ANANT RAMANATH HEGDE

disallowance of a sum of Rs.81,95,426/- under Section 37 of the Act. The aforesaid order was challenged before the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) and was upheld by an order dated 25.09.2013. The tribunal dismissed the appeal by an order dated 24.06.2016. In the aforesaid factual background, this appeal has been filed. 4. Learned counsel for the assessee