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

disallowance made - 4 - ITA No.53 of 2024 in assessment years 2013-14 and 2014-15. The assessee filed reply to the show-cause notice issued under Section 263 of the Act on 23.03.2022. The objections of the assessee were rejected and the order dated 30.03.2022 was passed. The Tribunal has in paragraphs No.10 to 12

M/S J K CEMENT WORKS vs. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA

Bench: H.B.PRABHAKARA SASTRY,VINEET KOTHARI

Section 12 of the KVAT Act, providing for deduction of input tax credit in respect of the capital goods, both would support the case of the present assessee. We do not find any force in the contention of the learned Additional Government Advocate or the premise taken by the authorities below, that merely because item Cement is mentioned in item

THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX vs. PRAVEEN V DODDANAVAR

Bench: SREENIVAS HARISH KUMAR,VINEET KOTHARI

Section 12 of the KVAT Act, providing for deduction of input tax credit in respect of the capital goods, both would support the case of the present assessee. We do not find any force in the contention of the learned Additional Government Advocate or the premise taken by the authorities below, that merely because item Cement is mentioned in item

THE BAILHONGAL URBAN COOPERATIVE BANK LTD vs. THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX

Bench: S.ABDUL NAZEER,P.S.DINESH KUMAR

Section 12 of the KVAT Act, providing for deduction of input tax credit in respect of the capital goods, both would support the case of the present assessee. We do not find any force in the contention of the learned Additional Government Advocate or the premise taken by the authorities below, that merely because item Cement is mentioned in item

PR. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX vs. M/S AMALGAMATED BEAN COFFEE TRADING CO LTD

In the result, the orders dated 21

Bench: ALOK ARADHE,ASHOK S.KINAGI

Section 36(1)(iii) when the said proviso was inapplicable to the case of the appellant and no part of the 6 borrowed capital was utilized for investment in work in progress in any event? (iii) The tribunal was correct in upholding the disallowance of interest on borrowed capital as attributable to capital work in progress at 12

COFFEEDAY GLOBAL LTD. vs. ADDITIONAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX

In the result, the orders dated 21

Bench: ALOK ARADHE,ASHOK S.KINAGI

Section 36(1)(iii) when the said proviso was inapplicable to the case of the appellant and no part of the 6 borrowed capital was utilized for investment in work in progress in any event? (iii) The tribunal was correct in upholding the disallowance of interest on borrowed capital as attributable to capital work in progress at 12

COFFEEDAY GLOBAL LTD. vs. ADDITIONAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX

In the result, the orders dated 21

Bench: ALOK ARADHE,ASHOK S.KINAGI

Section 36(1)(iii) when the said proviso was inapplicable to the case of the appellant and no part of the 6 borrowed capital was utilized for investment in work in progress in any event? (iii) The tribunal was correct in upholding the disallowance of interest on borrowed capital as attributable to capital work in progress at 12

PR. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-2 vs. M/S.J.J.GLASTRONICS PVT LTD

The appeal stands dismissed

Bench: S.SUJATHA,J.M.KHAZI

12 apply has to be considered for the purpose of Section 115JB(2) while considering the book profits. The order of the Tribunal is perverse in not following the judgment rendered by the said Tribunal in the case of DCIT vs. Shobha Developers reported in 58 Taxmann.com 107 dated 09.01.2015, whereby it has been held that the disallowance

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

12. Disallowance of certain fee, charge, etc. in the case of State Government Undertakings: 12.1 The provisions of Section 40 of the Income

THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX vs. TEXAS INSTRUMENTS INDIA PVT LTD

The appeals are dismissed

Bench: SATISH CHANDRA SHARMA,SURAJ GOVINDARAJ

disallowance if the order passed in sum and substance meets the legal requirements then it is said to be a valid order and appellate authorities has power to either enhance or reduce tax liability?”. I.T.A. NO.141 OF 2020 c/w I.T.A. NO.151 OF 2020 12 11. Sri.K.V.Aravind, learned Senior Standing Counsel for the Revenue, submits that: 11.1. The deduction under Section

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

Bench: CHIEF JUSTICE,C M JOSHI

disallowance of ₹23,93,733/- for AY 2015-16 and ₹25,12,500/- in respect of the AY 2016-17, under Section

THE PR. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, vs. M/S. DELHI INTERNATIONAL AIRPORT PVT. LTD.

Bench: S.SUJATHA,S VISHWAJITH SHETTY

disallowing the claim under section 40(a)(ia) of the Act. 6. Learned counsel appearing for the Revenue, justifying the impugned order of the Tribunal submitted that, the Airlines Operators while paying Passenger Service Fees [PSF (SC & FC) were retaining the amount - 12

M/S DELHI INTERNATIONAL AIRPORT LTD vs. THE PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX

Bench: S.SUJATHA,S VISHWAJITH SHETTY

disallowing the claim under section 40(a)(ia) of the Act. 6. Learned counsel appearing for the Revenue, justifying the impugned order of the Tribunal submitted that, the Airlines Operators while paying Passenger Service Fees [PSF (SC & FC) were retaining the amount - 12

M/S DELHI INTERNATIONAL AIRPORT LTD vs. THE PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX

Bench: S.SUJATHA,S VISHWAJITH SHETTY

disallowing the claim under section 40(a)(ia) of the Act. 6. Learned counsel appearing for the Revenue, justifying the impugned order of the Tribunal submitted that, the Airlines Operators while paying Passenger Service Fees [PSF (SC & FC) were retaining the amount - 12

THE PR. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, vs. M/S. DELHI INTERNATIONAL AIRPORT PVT. LTD.,

Bench: S.SUJATHA,S VISHWAJITH SHETTY

disallowing the claim under section 40(a)(ia) of the Act. 6. Learned counsel appearing for the Revenue, justifying the impugned order of the Tribunal submitted that, the Airlines Operators while paying Passenger Service Fees [PSF (SC & FC) were retaining the amount - 12

THE PR. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, vs. M/S. DELHI INTERNATIONAL AIRPORT PVT. LTD.,

Bench: S.SUJATHA,S VISHWAJITH SHETTY

disallowing the claim under section 40(a)(ia) of the Act. 6. Learned counsel appearing for the Revenue, justifying the impugned order of the Tribunal submitted that, the Airlines Operators while paying Passenger Service Fees [PSF (SC & FC) were retaining the amount - 12

M/S DELHI INTERNATIONAL vs. THE PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER

Bench: S.SUJATHA,S VISHWAJITH SHETTY

disallowing the claim under section 40(a)(ia) of the Act. 6. Learned counsel appearing for the Revenue, justifying the impugned order of the Tribunal submitted that, the Airlines Operators while paying Passenger Service Fees [PSF (SC & FC) were retaining the amount - 12

M/S TEJAS NETWORKS LIMITED vs. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX

In the result, I proceed to pass the following:

Bench: The Hon’Ble Mr.Justice Aravind Kumar

disallow such claim made by the assessee though duly certified by the prescribed authority by taking recourse to the later portion of sub-clause (ii) of sub-section (4) of Section 43 of the Act. He would summarise his 9 submissions by contending the definition of ‘scientific research’ found in Section 43(4) has been imported to Section