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

The appeals stand disposed of, accordingly

Bench: N.KUMAR,B.SREENIVASE GOWDA

Section 154. Notice u/s 142(1) was issued on 21.12.2001 with a questionnaire. Further notices u/s 142 (1) were issued on various dates beginning from 7.10.2003 to 8.3.2004. The assessee- company filed written replies along with enclosures from time to time. The return furnished on 30.10.2001 was processed u/s 143(3) of the I.T.Act on 24.03.2004 and order was passed

THE PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER vs. M/S OBULAPURAM MINING

Bench: K.SOMASHEKAR,UMESH M ADIGA

13) of the Income Tax Act on 31.12.2013, determining total income at Rs.10,86,34,35,052/- by making various additions, which reads as under: Additional / Issues Rs. Transfer pricing adjustments 112,20,92,081/- Claim of bogus transportation expenses of iron ore 40% attributable towards illegal mining. 86,43,47,335/- Disallowance of expenses claimed under section 37(1

THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (EXEMPTION) vs. CMR JNANADHARA TRUST

The appeals stand dismissed

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

disallowed. 7.4 Section 13(1)(c) of the Act disallows application of income to concerns referred to in sub-section

PR. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX vs. SMT. G. LAKSHMI ARUNA

Bench: K.SOMASHEKAR,UMESH M ADIGA

13. It is further contended by the standing counsel for the appellant, that against the order passed by the Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle 1(3), Bangalore dated 31.03.2013, further an appeal was preferred before the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) – VI wherein the appellate order and ground of decision was passed. The assessments under Section 153C read

PR. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX vs. SHRI. GALI JANARDHANA REDDY

Bench: K.SOMASHEKAR,UMESH M ADIGA

1(3), Bangalore dated 31.03.2013 an appeal was preferred before the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) – VI wherein the appellate order and ground of decision was passed. The assessments under Section 153C read with Section 144 of the IT Act for assessment years 2005-06 to 2010-11 and under Section 154D read with Section 144 for the assessment year

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

The appeals are disposed of

Bench: ALOK ARADHE,RAVI V HOSMANI

disallowing an amount of Rs.192,53,21,426/- on reversal of interest pertaining to earlier years as deduction out of current years income and added back to interest on zero coupon bonds to the tune of RS.1,03,53,095/- along with other additions/disallowance in computation of regular income/book profit. It was held that as per section 36(1)(viia

M/S SAFINA HOTELS PRIVATE LIMITED vs. THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX

Appeal is allowed

Bench: S.SUJATHA,N.K.PATIL

disallowed the deduction towards the capital expenditure. In such circumstances, levying of penalty under Section 271(1)(c) of the Act is mandatory and authorities have no discretionary power to waive off the penalty, even if there is any technical error in issuing the notice, it cannot be turned down only on the technicalities. What could be inferred from

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

13 the finding that investments in A.N.Coffeeday as on 31.03.2009 were made out of the funds of the assessee in the context of disallowance under Section 14A read with Rule8D(2)(ii) of the Rules and therefore, same conclusion ought to have been drawn to Section 36(1

COFFEEDAY GLOBAL LTD. vs. ADDITIONAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX

In the result, the orders dated 21

Bench: ALOK ARADHE,ASHOK S.KINAGI

13 the finding that investments in A.N.Coffeeday as on 31.03.2009 were made out of the funds of the assessee in the context of disallowance under Section 14A read with Rule8D(2)(ii) of the Rules and therefore, same conclusion ought to have been drawn to Section 36(1

COFFEEDAY GLOBAL LTD. vs. ADDITIONAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX

In the result, the orders dated 21

Bench: ALOK ARADHE,ASHOK S.KINAGI

13 the finding that investments in A.N.Coffeeday as on 31.03.2009 were made out of the funds of the assessee in the context of disallowance under Section 14A read with Rule8D(2)(ii) of the Rules and therefore, same conclusion ought to have been drawn to Section 36(1

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

THE PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX vs. M/S NIRANI SUGARS LTD.,

In the result, the impugned orders passed by

Bench: ALOK ARADHE,P.G.M.PATIL

disallowance of depreciation. The assessee thereupon approached the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal. The Tribunal, by an order dated 19.02.2015 has allowed the appeal preferred by the assessee and set aside the order of the Commission of Income Tax (Appeals). The Assessing Officer was further directed to allow depreciation as per Appendix I at the higher rates. The Tribunal, inter alia

THE PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX vs. M/S NIRANI SUGARS LTD.,

In the result, the impugned orders passed by

Bench: ALOK ARADHE,P.G.M.PATIL

disallowance of depreciation. The assessee thereupon approached the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal. The Tribunal, by an order dated 19.02.2015 has allowed the appeal preferred by the assessee and set aside the order of the Commission of Income Tax (Appeals). The Assessing Officer was further directed to allow depreciation as per Appendix I at the higher rates. The Tribunal, inter alia

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

The appeal stands dismissed

Bench: S.SUJATHA,J.M.KHAZI

disallowance computed under Section 14A of the Act pertains to computation of income under the normal provisions of the Act and cannot be read into the provisions of Section 115JB of the Act pertaining to levy of minimum alternate tax and there is no express provision in clause (f) of Explanation 1 to Section 115JB of the Act to that

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

In the result, the appeals are partly allowed

Bench: B.MANOHAR,DILIP B.BHOSALE

Section 37(1) of the I.T. Act. The respondent-assessee claims that this expenditure was incurred by them for “community development” in a backward area at Amalner where their factory situate. The AO disallowed the expenditure on the ground that those were in the nature of charity and not 11 connected with the business. Similar was the view taken

THE PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER vs. M/S OBULAPURAM MINING

Bench: K.SOMASHEKAR,UMESH M ADIGA

1(3), Bengaluru (for short “DCIT”) and to pass such other suitable order as deems fit in this appeal. 2.Heard the learned standing counsel Shri Y.V. Raviraj for appellants/revenue and the learned counsel Shri Mayank Jain for respondent/assessee. Perused the order dated 29.07.2016 passed by the ITAT in ITA Nos.653 (Bang) 2015 for the Assessment Year 2010-11. 3.The factual

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

13-14 and AY 14-15. The AO has erroneously not made the disallowance in the asstt. order. Not making this disallowance is contrary to law. 5. This is not a case where the Assessing Officer has taken one of the legally plausible views. Not making the above disallowance is legally untenable. Moreover, the Hon'ble Supreme Court (Constitution Bench

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

13. It is contended on behalf of the Revenue that the fixtures such as, transformers, D.G.sets, elevators etc., were part of the building and income from letting out of building is chargeable to tax under the head income from house property. That the assessing officer had rightly disallowed the claim of the assessee for deduction on account of depreciation