THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX vs. M/S.REMA CONSTRUCTIONS,

Bench: B.MANOHAR,K.SREEDHAR RAO

disallowance of the said items by the Assessing Officer was not proper. The Assessing Officer should have initiated penalty proceedings under Section – 271(1)(c) for deliberately 3 furnishing inaccurate particulars and thus directed the Assessing Authority to initiate penalty proceedings. 3. Aggrieved by the said order, the assessee filed an appeal before the Tribunal. The Tribunal allowed the appeal

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 the claim made by an assessee under Section 35(2AB) which does not include any expenditure incurred in the acquisition of rights, in, or arising out of scientific research would be within the domain of the jurisdictional assessing Officer. In other words, the issue of jurisdiction of assessing officer to examine such claim, is an issue which requires

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

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 Of these, the Assessing Officer found that to the extent given in column 3 above, the appellant was unable to substantiate the said expense claimed before the Assessing Officer. 16. In respect of 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

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 2,79,28,997 UAE 20,78,28,883 37,27,49,142

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 2,79,28,997 UAE 20,78,28,883 37,27,49,142

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 PR. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX vs. M/S CISCO SYSTEMS

The appeals are allowed; the impugned

Bench: SATISH CHANDRA SHARMA,R. NATARAJ

disallowed the excess depreciation claimed on networking equipments. 3. The Principal Commissioner of Income Tax, Bengaluru, thereafter issued a notice under Section 263 of the Act of 1961 on 5.3.2015 and called upon the assessee to explain as to why the assessment order passed by the assessing officer under Section 143(3) of the Act of 1961 should

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

disallowed as it was not meant for management of construction, but on other expenses, such as advertisement, sales promotion etc. Therefore, the income had to be assessed under the head income from other sources. The Tribunal held that the income had to be assessed as business income and the assessee could not have received a sum of Rs.78.25 lakh without

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

disallowed as it was not meant for management of construction, but on other expenses, such as advertisement, sales promotion etc. Therefore, the income had to be assessed under the head income from other sources. The Tribunal held that the income had to be assessed as business income and the assessee could not have received a sum of Rs.78.25 lakh without

THE COMMISIONER 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

disallowed as it was not meant for management of construction, but on other expenses, such as advertisement, sales promotion etc. Therefore, the income had to be assessed under the head income from other sources. The Tribunal held that the income had to be assessed as business income and the assessee could not have received a sum of Rs.78.25 lakh without

THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX GULBARGA vs. M/S MANJUNATHA COTTON AND GINNING FACTORY

The appeals are dismissed

Bench: ARAVIND KUMAR,N.KUMAR

2) of section 143 or fails to comply with a direction issued under sub-section (2A) of section 142; or (c) Has concealed the particulars of his income or furnished inaccurate particulars of such income, he may direct that such person shall pay by way of penalty, - (i) Omitted 38 (ii) In the cases referred to in clause

COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (CENTRAL) vs. M/S. GMR ENERGY LTD

In the result, the appeal is dismissed

Bench: ALOK ARADHE,HEMANT CHANDANGOUDAR

2) as well as Section 142(1) of the Act were issued to the assessee on 18.01.2010, 02.03.2010, 08.06.2010 and 02.11.2010. The details as sought by the Assessing Officer were furnished by the assessee and an order of assessment under Section 143(1) of the Act was passed on 27.12.2010, by which the interest paid was not treated as revenue

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

2) and Section 142(1) of the Act were issued. The Assessing Officer by an order dated 27.03.2013 concluded the assessment by making certain additions and disallowed

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

2) and Section 142(1) of the Act were issued. The Assessing Officer by an order dated 27.03.2013 concluded the assessment by making certain additions and disallowed

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

2) and Section 142(1) of the Act were issued. The Assessing Officer by an order dated 27.03.2013 concluded the assessment by making certain additions and disallowed

M/S. KARNATAKA INSTRADE CORPORATION LIMITED vs. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX

The appeal is allowed in part

Bench: B.MANOHAR,VINEET SARAN

142(1) of the Act. During the course of assessment proceedings, the Assessing Officer noticed that the assessee-Company entered into an agreement 4 of sale dated 25-08-1999 with M/s. Madras Cement Limited (hereinafter referred to as ‘MCL’ for short) for the sale of assets of the Company, both moveable and immovable assets of the Cement Factory. Further

GMR INFRASTRUCTURE LIMITED vs. THE DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX

In the result, we do not find any merit in the appeal

Bench: ALOK ARADHE,HEMANT CHANDANGOUDAR

2) and 142(1) was issued to the assessee on 01.07.2014. Another notice under Section 142(1) of the Act was issued on 16.02.2015 by which the assessee was required to furnish various details. The assessee filed detailed reply to the notices on 25.02.2015 and 03.03.2015. The Assessing Officer thereafter passed an order on 19.03.2015 by which following disallowances

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

Appeal is allowed

Bench: S.SUJATHA,N.K.PATIL

142(1)/143(2) of the Income Tax Act, 1961”. The relevant portion which relates to Section 271(1)(c) of the Act has been deleted by the Assessing Officer which reads thus, “has concealed the particulars of his income or furnished inaccurate particulars of such income”. However the Assessing Officer though issued notice under Section