M/S T T K PRESTIGE LTD vs. THE UNION OF INDIA REPTD BY ITS FINANCE SECRETARY

Bench: The Hon’Ble Mr.Justice P.B. Bajanthri W.P. No.26037/2005 C/W W.P.No.4464/2007 & W.P.No.27087/2005(It)

disallowed under section 37 of the Act is outside the purview of fringe benefit tax as explained by CBDT Circular dated 29/8/2005 in response to Question No.35. Hence the contention of the assessee that levy of fringe benefit tax is double taxation is incorrect. 6. It is submitted that the petitioner has contended that the benefits/expenses can be taxed

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

Bench: S.SUJATHA,VINEET KOTHARI

13 with effect from 01/04/2017, the resident of the contracting State, viz.,India, can be taxed in the contracting State. 19. We have heard the learned counsels at length and given our thoughtful consideration to the rival contentions and the case laws cited at the bar. 20. We are essentially called upon to decide the ambit, scope and parameters

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

The appeals stand dismissed

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

2) the following, namely:- (a) the author of the trust or the founder of the institution62, (b) any person who has made a substantial contribution to the trust or institution, [that is to say, any person whose total contribution up to the end of the relevant previous year exceeds [fifty] thousand rupees

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

Bench: H.B.PRABHAKARA SASTRY,VINEET KOTHARI

13. Thus, while Section 11 of the KVAT Act provides for restriction on input tax credit, in its exception carved out under Section 11(a)(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

THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX vs. PRAVEEN V DODDANAVAR

Bench: SREENIVAS HARISH KUMAR,VINEET KOTHARI

13. Thus, while Section 11 of the KVAT Act provides for restriction on input tax credit, in its exception carved out under Section 11(a)(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

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

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

13. Thus, while Section 11 of the KVAT Act provides for restriction on input tax credit, in its exception carved out under Section 11(a)(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

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

2) of the Act was served on the assessee on 27.06.2016. A draft assessment order (‘DAO’ for short) under Section 143(3) read with Section 144C(13) of the Act was passed on 18.12.2018. Aggrieved by the DAO, the respondent-assessee filed objections to the same. The objections were disposed of, pursuant to which, the Assessing Officer passed the final

SRI N GOVINDARAJU vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER

Appeal stands disposed of

Bench: S.SUJATHA,VINEET SARAN

disallowance of expenditure, were upheld by the Tribunal. Being aggrieved by the said order of the Tribunal, this appeal has been filed, which has been admitted on the following four substantial questions of law: 6 (1) Whether the Tribunal was correct in upholding re- assessment proceedings, when the reason recorded for re-opening of assessment under S.147 of Act itself

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): Particulars Amount in Rs. Amount in Rs. Relief allowed by CIT(A) Freight Charges Singapore 13,89,95,282 Turkey 2

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): Particulars Amount in Rs. Amount in Rs. Relief allowed by CIT(A) Freight Charges Singapore 13,89,95,282 Turkey 2

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 held that the AO has not doubted the payment nor held the payment as excessive even though in terms of Section 40A (2) only ‘legitimate needs of the business’ is allowable as expenditure. Thus there is no material

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

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

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

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

The appeals stand disposed of, accordingly

Bench: N.KUMAR,B.SREENIVASE GOWDA

2) was issued on 14.02.2005. A questionnaire was issued on 27.04.2006 calling for certain details and the compliance was fixed on various dates beginning from 19.05.2006. The assessee- company filed written replies along with enclosures. Assessment u/s 143(3) was completed and orders dated 29.12.2006 for assessment year 2004-05 was passed after - 23 - making certain allowances/ disallowances, re-computation

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

The appeals stand disposed of, accordingly

Bench: N.KUMAR,B.SREENIVASE GOWDA

2) was issued on 14.02.2005. A questionnaire was issued on 27.04.2006 calling for certain details and the compliance was fixed on various dates beginning from 19.05.2006. The assessee- company filed written replies along with enclosures. Assessment u/s 143(3) was completed and orders dated 29.12.2006 for assessment year 2004-05 was passed after - 23 - making certain allowances/ disallowances, re-computation

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

The appeal stands dismissed

Bench: S.SUJATHA,J.M.KHAZI

13 - Income Tax reported in 431 ITR 255 (Kar.), wherein the computation of book profit with reference to Sections 14A and 115JB has been considered and it is held that Explanation 1 in Section 115JB(2) has been inserted so as to provide that if any provision for diminution in the value of any asset has been debited

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