M/S ANS CONSTRUCTIONS LTD vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF COMMERCIAL

Bench: The Hon’Ble Mrs.Justice S.Sujatha

139[4] of the said act. A return filed is bound to be processed by the Income Tax authorities for which purpose they are meant unless there is an embargo placed. 23. In the case of State of Karnataka Vs. Centum Industries Private Limited case, reported in [2015] 77 VST 117 [Karn], The Division Bench of this Court interpreting Section

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

THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX vs. M/S LUWA INDIA PVT LTD

Bench: RAVI MALIMATH,N.KUMAR

4. Prior to the amendment, the said provision read as under:- Section 40(a)(ia) : any interest, commission or brokerage, rent, royalty fees for professional services or fees for technical services payable to a resident, or amounts payable to a contractor or sub-contractor, being resident, for carrying out any work (including supply of labour for carrying out any work

THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX vs. M/S MOTOROLA INDIA ELECTRONICS (P) LTD

Bench: N.KUMAR,RATHNAKALA

disallowed the exemption claimed for the assessment year 2001 – 02. Aggrieved by the said order, the assessee preferred an appeal to the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), which came to be dismissed. Aggrieved by the said order, the assessee preferred an appeal to the Tribunal. The Tribunal insofar as the assessment year 1998 – 99 is concerned, held that the interest

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

139 (Del)]. 8. According to him, the order passed by the PCIT under Section 263 does not dispute the fact that the amount of Rs.36,34,10,000/- represents discounts. In that view of the matter, the only plausible view is that Section 194H does not stand attracted and therefore the conclusion that there ought to be a disallowance under

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

4. Being aggrieved, the assessee filed an appeal before the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals). The Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), by an order dated 22.05.2013 upheld the 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

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

4. Being aggrieved, the assessee filed an appeal before the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals). The Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), by an order dated 22.05.2013 upheld the 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

THE COMMISSIONER vs. M/S GOPALAN ENTERPRISES

In the result, the appeal is disposed of

Bench: ALOK ARADHE,H.T. NARENDRA PRASAD

139 ITJ 233) and held that "unit" means separate floor, without appreciating that the intent of Legislature is to encourage the creation of more businesses for the economy and not creation of more floors in the building and recorded perverse finding? iii. Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the appellate authorities were correct in holding

THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX vs. SMT MEENAKSHI DEVI AVARU

In the result, the appeal is disposed of

Bench: S.SUJATHA,VINEET KOTHARI

139 ITJ 233) and held that "unit" means separate floor, without appreciating that the intent of Legislature is to encourage the creation of more businesses for the economy and not creation of more floors in the building and recorded perverse finding? iii. Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the appellate authorities were correct in holding

HICAL AEROSPACE PRIVATE LIMTED

In the result, the appeal is disposed of

Bench: KRISHNA S DIXIT

139 ITJ 233) and held that "unit" means separate floor, without appreciating that the intent of Legislature is to encourage the creation of more businesses for the economy and not creation of more floors in the building and recorded perverse finding? iii. Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the appellate authorities were correct in holding

OFFICIAL LIQUIDATOR

In the result, the appeal is disposed of

Bench: RAVI MALIMATH

139 ITJ 233) and held that "unit" means separate floor, without appreciating that the intent of Legislature is to encourage the creation of more businesses for the economy and not creation of more floors in the building and recorded perverse finding? iii. Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the appellate authorities were correct in holding

MADHU SOUHARDA PATHINA SAHAKARI NIYAMITHA vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER

The appeal stands dismissed

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

disallowance of deduction under Section 80P of the Act, on the ground of non-filing of return of income, can be made only by invoking Section 80AC of the Act. However, Section 80AC has been made applicable to Section 80P of the Act by the Finance Act, 2018 with effect from 01.04.2018, i.e., from the Assessment Year 2018–19. Since

HINDUSTAN AERONAUTICS LIMITED vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER

In the result, the order of the

Bench: ALOK ARADHE,H.T. NARENDRA PRASAD

disallowance of expenditure in terms of Rule 8D is justified. 10. Learned counsel for the revenue in I.T.A.No.468/2016 submitted that finding of the tribunal allowing the claim under Section35(iv) of the Act for the first time before the appellate authority without revising the return of the income is incorrect and is contrary to provisions of Section 139(4

THE PR COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX vs. M/S HINDUSTAN AERONAUTICS LTD

In the result, the order of the

Bench: ALOK ARADHE,H.T. NARENDRA PRASAD

disallowance of expenditure in terms of Rule 8D is justified. 10. Learned counsel for the revenue in I.T.A.No.468/2016 submitted that finding of the tribunal allowing the claim under Section35(iv) of the Act for the first time before the appellate authority without revising the return of the income is incorrect and is contrary to provisions of Section 139(4

THE PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER vs. M/S OBULAPURAM MINING

Bench: K.SOMASHEKAR,UMESH M ADIGA

Disallowance of Expenses under Explanation to section 37(1) and in respect of third issue i.e., addition made on account of sale of Land, the ITAT set-aside the order of CIT (A) on that issue and restored the matter to A.O. for a fresh decision with the same directions as were given by the tribunal

RNS INFRASTRUCTURE LIMITED vs. INCOME TAX SETTLEMENT COMMISSIONER

In the result, writ petitions are allowed

Bench: The Hon’Ble Mr. Justice L. Narayana Swamy Writ Petition Nos.46275-46289 Of 2016 (T-It)

139 of the Act. 4. Subsequently, petitioner filed an application in Form 34-B of the Act before the first respondent for the Assessment Years making full and true disclosure of the income disclosing additional undisclosed income. It stated in their returns what was the source of such incomes and what was the modes of earning such income. Petitioner also

PR. COMMISSIONER OF vs. M/S TALLY SOLUTIONS PVT LTD.,

In the result, the appeals fail and are hereby

Bench: ALOK ARADHE,H.T. NARENDRA PRASAD

4. Facts leading to filing of these appeals briefly stated are that assessee is engaged in business of software development and sale of software product licence, software maintenance and training in software. For the sake of brevity, facts from I.T.A.No.199/2017 are being referred to. The assessee filed the return of income for the Assessment Year 2009-10 after claiming

PR COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-7 vs. M/S TALLY SOLUTIONS PVT LTD

In the result, the appeals fail and are hereby

Bench: ALOK ARADHE,H.T. NARENDRA PRASAD

4. Facts leading to filing of these appeals briefly stated are that assessee is engaged in business of software development and sale of software product licence, software maintenance and training in software. For the sake of brevity, facts from I.T.A.No.199/2017 are being referred to. The assessee filed the return of income for the Assessment Year 2009-10 after claiming