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

3 by accepting the declaration of the Petitioner only partially. Against the said Certificates, which accepted the claim / declaration of the petitioner only partially, petitioner filed rectification applications which were also rejected by the respondents by passing the impugned orders dated 01.04.2022. Aggrieved by the impugned Certificates and orders, petitioner is before this Court by way of the present petitions

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

3 by accepting the declaration of the Petitioner only partially. Against the said Certificates, which accepted the claim / declaration of the petitioner only partially, petitioner filed rectification applications which were also rejected by the respondents by passing the impugned orders dated 01.04.2022. Aggrieved by the impugned Certificates and orders, petitioner is before this Court by way of the present petitions

THE PR COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX vs. M/S VSL MINING COMPANY PVT LTD

Appeal is dismissed as being

Bench: S.G.PANDIT,C.M. POONACHA

142(1) of the IT Act was issued, consequent to which vide Assessment Order4 dated 31.12.2009 the Assessing Officer4 assessed the taxable income as `115,89,54,044/- and the balance tax payable at `44,31,32,567/-. 3. It is further forthcoming that a survey under Section 133A of the IT Act was conducted on 25.3.2008 and search under

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 GULBARGA vs. M/S MANJUNATHA COTTON AND GINNING FACTORY

The appeals are dismissed

Bench: ARAVIND KUMAR,N.KUMAR

disallowances on different grounds for both the assessments years under dispute. This was not so. That being the situation, they declined to interfere with the order passed by the Appellate Authority who has cancelled the levy of penalty. Aggrieved by the said order, the Revenue has preferred this appeal. 22 ITA Nos.5025 and 5026 of 2010 12. The assessee

M/S PADMINI PRODUCTS (P) LTD., vs. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX

In the result, the aforesaid

Bench: ALOK ARADHE,H.T. NARENDRA PRASAD

3 to section 43(1)? 2. Facts leading to filing of this appeal in nut shell are that the assessee is a Private Limited Company 4 engaged in the business of manufacturing, dealing and exporting of incense sticks and allied products. The assessee succeeded to, in the business of partnership firm viz., ‘Padmini Products’ with effect from 01.02.2005. Before

DELL INDIA PVT LTD vs. THE JOINT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX

Bench: The Hon’Ble Mr.Justice Aravind Kumar

disallowance came to be made by the Assessing Officer on account of revenue itself recognizing the accounting policy followed by petitioner and same came to be accepted. He would also submit that subsequently for the assessment year 2010-11 Assessing officer took a different view and has held that there was no concept of deferred revenue under

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

The appeals stand dismissed

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

disallows application of income to concerns referred to in sub-section (3) only where such application results in a direct or indirect benefit to the - 12 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:10978-DB ITA No. 142

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 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

INGERSOLL-RAND (INDIA) LIMITED vs. THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX 1

In the result, the appeals are

Bench: ALOK ARADHE,M.NAGAPRASANNA

142(1) of the Act. On receipt of the aforesaid notice, the appellant filed a response by way of written submissions and sought personal hearing. The assessing officer passed an order on 19.03.2003 under Section 143(3) of the Act re-determining the total income by resorting to certain adjustments and re-computing the deductions under Section 80HHC, 80HHE

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

In the result, the appeal is dismissed

Bench: ALOK ARADHE,HEMANT CHANDANGOUDAR

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 expenditure and disallowance was made

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

3. I.T.A.No.952/2017 was admitted by a Bench of this Court vide order dated 25.02.2019 on the following substantial question of law: "Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal is justified in setting aside the disallowance of claim of depreciation on purchase of Intellectual Property Rights made by assessing authority under section

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

3. I.T.A.No.952/2017 was admitted by a Bench of this Court vide order dated 25.02.2019 on the following substantial question of law: "Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal is justified in setting aside the disallowance of claim of depreciation on purchase of Intellectual Property Rights made by assessing authority under section

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

3. I.T.A.No.952/2017 was admitted by a Bench of this Court vide order dated 25.02.2019 on the following substantial question of law: "Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal is justified in setting aside the disallowance of claim of depreciation on purchase of Intellectual Property Rights made by assessing authority under section

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

Bench: K.SOMASHEKAR,UMESH M ADIGA

142 (1) which was issued on 21.12.2012 calling for the return of income for assessment year 2011-2012. In response to the aforesaid notice, respondent/ assessee filed a letter dated 28.12.2012, which was received on 01.01.2013, in which the assessee has stated that CBI has seized all the relevant material, including the books of accounts, during September, 2011. Therefore

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