THE PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER vs. M/S OBULAPURAM MINING

Bench: K.SOMASHEKAR,UMESH M ADIGA

2) of Section 92A are not fulfilled, there is no relationship of AE between the Assessee Company and GLATIPL and therefore, the provisions of chapter X of the Income Tax Act, are not applicable. 9. It is further stated as regards the issue of claim of bogus transportation expenses of iron ore at Rs.86,43,47,335/- that during

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

Bench: H.B.PRABHAKARA SASTRY,VINEET KOTHARI

2) as well as 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

THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX vs. PRAVEEN V DODDANAVAR

Bench: SREENIVAS HARISH KUMAR,VINEET KOTHARI

2) as well as 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

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

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

2) as well as 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

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

Bench: S.SUJATHA,VINEET KOTHARI

2)(v) of the Income Tax Act and it allowed the expenditure as “current repairs to the existing machinery”. The Apex Court upholding the said Order of the learned Tribunal held that such Order could be passed within its powers under Section 33(4) of the Act to pass such Orders ‘as it thinks fit’. Date of Judgment

PR COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-5 vs. M/S PAGE INDUSTRIES LTD

In the result, the appeal fails and is hereby dismissed

Bench: ALOK ARADHE,R. NATARAJ

disallowance of Rs.74,08,964/- under the provisions of Section 80JJAA of the Act were proposed. The 5 assessee thereupon filed objections before the Dispute Resolution Panel contesting all the additions. The Dispute Resolution Panel, however rejected the objections preferred by the assessee. The assessee thereupon filed an appeal before the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (hereinafter referred

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

disallowance on the ground that in terms of proviso to Section 36(1)(iii) which was incorporated in the At with effect form 01.04.2004 the interest cost ought to have been capitalized. 21 12. It is pertinent to mention here that prior to amendment of Section 36(1)(iii) vide Finance Act, 2003, it is a well settled proposition

COFFEEDAY GLOBAL LTD. vs. ADDITIONAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX

In the result, the orders dated 21

Bench: ALOK ARADHE,ASHOK S.KINAGI

disallowance on the ground that in terms of proviso to Section 36(1)(iii) which was incorporated in the At with effect form 01.04.2004 the interest cost ought to have been capitalized. 21 12. It is pertinent to mention here that prior to amendment of Section 36(1)(iii) vide Finance Act, 2003, it is a well settled proposition

COFFEEDAY GLOBAL LTD. vs. ADDITIONAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX

In the result, the orders dated 21

Bench: ALOK ARADHE,ASHOK S.KINAGI

disallowance on the ground that in terms of proviso to Section 36(1)(iii) which was incorporated in the At with effect form 01.04.2004 the interest cost ought to have been capitalized. 21 12. It is pertinent to mention here that prior to amendment of Section 36(1)(iii) vide Finance Act, 2003, it is a well settled proposition

SRI N GOVINDARAJU vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER

Appeal stands disposed of

Bench: S.SUJATHA,VINEET SARAN

section 45(2) of the Act and denying the benefit of indexation. The reassessment was completed on 4 total income of Rs.29,90,672/-, which was for reasons other than the one recorded in the notice. During the relevant period, the assessee had sold a plot of land measuring 12,430 sq. ft. for a consideration of Rs.74

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

THE PR. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIT (A) vs. M/S. MANIPAL HEALTH SYSTEMS PVT. LTD.,

Appeal is dismissed

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

disallowance made under Section 40A(2) of the Act is based on surmises and hence, unsustainable. 12. The ITAT has rightly

THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX vs. M/S QUEST GLOBAL ENGINEERING SERVICES PVT. LTD.,

In the result, we don to find any

Bench: ALOK ARADHE,R. NATARAJ

disallowance under Section 14A of the Act, the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) upheld the order of the Assessing Officer. In the result, the appeal preferred by the assessee was partly allowed. The assessee as well as the revenue filed appeals before the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal against the order of Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals). The Tribunal

M/S NANDI STEELS LIMITED vs. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX

In the result, the findings

Bench: ALOK ARADHE,R. NATARAJ

disallowed the claim of set off of brought forward loss. It is also pointed out that proviso to Section 72(i) was omitted by Finance act, 1999 with effect from 01.04.2000 and for the impugned assessment year 2003-04, the assessee was not required to carry on the business for the purpose of set off of brought forward business loss

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

Bench: CHIEF JUSTICE,C M JOSHI

disallowance was founded on the proviso to Section 92C(4) of the Act. - 12 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:36360-DB ITA No. 107 of 2025 C/W ITA No. 106 of 2025 17. It is material to note that the TP adjustments are made pursuant to the APA entered into by the Assessee with CBDT. Section 92CC

MANGALORE REFINERY AND PETROCHEMICALS LTD vs. PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX

In the result, I pass the following:-

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

disallowance under section 40(a)(i), the disputed tax which 15 is subject matter of departmental appeal before the High Court is as under:- AYs Tax Arrears Disputed tax [i.e., tax @ 33.99% on disputed income] Payable under VsVs @ 50% of tax 2008-09 37,28,12,027 12

MANGALORE REFINERY AND PETROCHEMICALS LTD vs. PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX

In the result, I pass the following:-

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

disallowance under section 40(a)(i), the disputed tax which 15 is subject matter of departmental appeal before the High Court is as under:- AYs Tax Arrears Disputed tax [i.e., tax @ 33.99% on disputed income] Payable under VsVs @ 50% of tax 2008-09 37,28,12,027 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