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

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

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)

c) of the difficulty in the valuation of the benefits. 2.2 In India, prior to assessment year 1998-99, some perquisites/fringe benefits were included in salary in terms of section 17 and accordingly taxed under section 15 of the Income-tax Act in the hands of the employee and a large number of fringe benefits were taxed by the employer

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

Bench: S.SUJATHA,VINEET KOTHARI

C (5) of the Income Tax Act, 1961, the Assessee Company preferred an appeal before the learned Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT), who disposed of the said appeal by the impugned Order dated 22/02/2017. Date of Judgment :23-07-2018 I.T.A.No.512/2017 M/s. Fidelity Business Services India Pvt. Ltd., Vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income-Tax, & Anr. 7/86 9. The learned

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

M/S BANGALORE ELECTRICITY SUPPLY COMPANY LTD vs. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX

In the result, the order passed by the tribunal

Bench: ALOK ARADHE,R. NATARAJ

disallowed the deduction claimed under Section 80IA(4)(iv)(c) of the Act and held that computation as per normal provisions of the Act is adopted as tax liability. 3. The assessee thereupon filed an appeal before the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), who by an order dated 10.02.2009 dismissed the appeal preferred by the assessee. The assessee thereupon approached

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

Bench: H.B.PRABHAKARA SASTRY,VINEET KOTHARI

c) Input tax shall not be deducted by any dealer executing a works contract, (i) in respect of the amount paid or payable to any sub-contractor as the consideration for execution of part or whole of such works contract for him, that is claimed as deduction; and Date of Order: 23.03.2017 STRP Nos.100001, 100002, 100003 of 2017 M/s.J.K. Cement

THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX vs. PRAVEEN V DODDANAVAR

Bench: SREENIVAS HARISH KUMAR,VINEET KOTHARI

c) Input tax shall not be deducted by any dealer executing a works contract, (i) in respect of the amount paid or payable to any sub-contractor as the consideration for execution of part or whole of such works contract for him, that is claimed as deduction; and Date of Order: 23.03.2017 STRP Nos.100001, 100002, 100003 of 2017 M/s.J.K. Cement

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

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

c) Input tax shall not be deducted by any dealer executing a works contract, (i) in respect of the amount paid or payable to any sub-contractor as the consideration for execution of part or whole of such works contract for him, that is claimed as deduction; and Date of Order: 23.03.2017 STRP Nos.100001, 100002, 100003 of 2017 M/s.J.K. Cement

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

Bench: CHIEF JUSTICE,C M JOSHI

13 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:36360-DB ITA No. 107 of 2025 C/W ITA No. 106 of 2025 into, a modified return in accordance with and limited to the agreement. (2) Save as otherwise provided in this section, all other provisions of this Act shall apply accordingly as if the modified return is a return furnished under 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-2 vs. M/S.J.J.GLASTRONICS PVT LTD

The appeal stands dismissed

Bench: S.SUJATHA,J.M.KHAZI

c) amend any intimation under sub-section (1) of section 200A; (d) amend any intimation under sub-section (1) of section 206CB; - 8 - (1A) Where any matter has been considered and decided in any proceeding by way of appeal or revision relating to an order referred to in sub- section (1), the authority passing such order may, notwithstanding anything contained

SRI N GOVINDARAJU vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER

Appeal stands disposed of

Bench: S.SUJATHA,VINEET SARAN

c) and (d). Besides the aforesaid issue, on facts/merits also certain questions have been raised which would require consideration of this Court. Brief facts of this case are that the appellant, who is assessed as an individual, has income from house property, transport business, capital gains and other sources. For the assessment year 2004-05, he 3 filed his Income

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

c) Pass such other orders as the Hon’ble Court deems fit and proper in the interest of justice and equity; d) for costs of this Petition. “ 2. Both the petitions are by the same petitioner – assessee seeking identical reliefs. While W.P.No.10551/2022 is in relation to the assessment year 2008-09, W.P.No.10523/2022 is in relation to the assessment

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

c) Pass such other orders as the Hon’ble Court deems fit and proper in the interest of justice and equity; d) for costs of this Petition. “ 2. Both the petitions are by the same petitioner – assessee seeking identical reliefs. While W.P.No.10551/2022 is in relation to the assessment year 2008-09, W.P.No.10523/2022 is in relation to the assessment

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

C AND CONFIRM THE ORDER OF THE APPELLATE COMMISSIONER CONFIRMING THE ORDER PASSED BY THE ASST. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE - 2(3)(1), BENGALURU AND ETC. THIS ITA, HAVING BEEN HEARD AND RESERVED FOR JUDGMENT ON 05.10.2023 COMING ON FOR PRONOUNCEMENT OF JUDGMENT THIS DAY, P.S.DINESH KUMAR J, PRONOUNCED THE FOLLOWING:- JUDGMENT This appeal by the Revenue, directed against

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

Bench: K.SOMASHEKAR,UMESH M ADIGA

disallowed(Rs) (I) (II) (III) 2009-10 28,76,23,325 9,95,82,217 2010-11 2,29,05,056 1,46,91,363 15. Of these the assessing officer found that to the extent given in column (III) above, the appellant was unable to substantiate the said expenses claimed before the assessing officer. 16.In respect of assessment

THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX vs. M/S BPL SANYO FINANCE LTD

In the result, the appeal filed by the revenue is

Bench: The Tribunal Was Arising From The Order Dated 4Th June 2004 Passed By The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) Bangalore (For Short “The

2. The appeal before the Tribunal was arising from the order dated 4th June 2004 passed by the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) Bangalore (for short “the 3 appellate authority”) in an appeal against levy of penalty under Section 271(1)(c) of the Act. The penalty was levied by the Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle