THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX LTU vs. M/S. CANARA BANK

The appeal stands disposed of as

Bench: SATISH CHANDRA SHARMA,R. NATARAJ

144) AND GODHRA 6 ELECTRICITY CO.LTD CASE (REPORTED IN 225 ITR PAGE 746)? 7. Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal is right in law in holding that addition to book profits under Section 115 JB towards expenditure on exempt income is purely academic in nature as the Tribunal has held that no disallowance

THE PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER vs. M/S OBULAPURAM MINING

Bench: K.SOMASHEKAR,UMESH M ADIGA

disallowances. 55. However, keeping in view the contention made by the learned Standing Counsel Shri Y.V. Raviraj for the appellant / Revenue and so also the learned counsel Shri Mayank Jain for the respondent / Assessee, at the cost of repetition, it is relevant to state that the counsel for the respondent / Assessee had relied the judgment of THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME

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

PR. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-5 vs. M/S. PUMA SPORTS INDIA P., LTD.,

The appeal stands dismissed

Bench: SATISH CHANDRA SHARMA,V SRISHANANDA

144(C)(13) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as ‘Act’) by making transfer pricing adjustment for Rs.4,16,65,106/- on the basis of the order passed under Section 92CA of the Act dated 24.10.2016. The assessing authority also made other additions. The assessee’s objections were not considered by the Dispute Resumption Panel and therefore

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

The appeal is dismissed accordingly

Bench: SATISH CHANDRA SHARMA,V SRISHANANDA

disallowed the deduction under 3 Section 10B of the Income tax Act, 1961 (‘the Act’ for short) in respect of two units claimed by the assessee for income from onsite-subcontract work given to its associated enterprises in its order passed under Section 143(3) r/w Section 144

SMT. PUNEETHA @ PUNEETHA B. A. vs. SRI. D. RAVI

The appeal is dismissed accordingly

Bench: R DEVDAS

disallowed the deduction under 3 Section 10B of the Income tax Act, 1961 (‘the Act’ for short) in respect of two units claimed by the assessee for income from onsite-subcontract work given to its associated enterprises in its order passed under Section 143(3) r/w Section 144

MPHASIS LIMITED vs. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX

Bench: The Hon’Ble Mr.Justice B. Veerappa Writ Petition No.13313 Of 2017 (T-It)

disallowance under Section 40(a)(ia) of the Act is to be made of the expenses incurred and claimed by the assessee but before the payment of which, the assessee has failed to deduct tax at source. The genuineness of the expenditure is not in dispute. The dispute is whether Tax Deducted at Source was to be made before making

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 of 2025 C/W ITA No. 143 of 2025 ITA No. 144

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

The appeals are allowed; the impugned

Bench: SATISH CHANDRA SHARMA,R. NATARAJ

Section 144(C) of the Act of 1961 on 12.10.2012, wherein the assessing officer has disallowed the excess depreciation claimed

THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX AND ANR vs. M/S ANIL KUMAR AND CO

Bench: ARAVIND KUMAR,RAM MOHAN REDDY

disallowed the addition of `3,60,00,000/- made by the Assessing Officer and deleted the said addition. On the issue of Gross Profit adopted by the Assessing Officer at 4% it came to be held that assessee had maintained regular books of accounts and also stock register which are duly audited under section 44AB of the Income

PR COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX vs. M/S FORTUNA PROJECTS

Bench: P.S.DINESH KUMAR,C.M. POONACHA

disallowance under Section 40A(3) and 40(a)(ia) of the Income - Tax does not arise as there was no claim for deduction of expenses? 2. Heard Sri E.I. Sanmathi, learned Advocate for the Revenue. 3. Despite service, there is no representation on behalf of the Assessee. Hence, on the last date of hearing, we had requested Sri A.Shankar, learned

PR. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX vs. SRI SRI ADICHUNCHUNAGIRI SHIKSHANA TRUST

In the result, all the appeals are

Bench: JAYANT PATEL,B.SREENIVASE GOWDA

144 of the Act denying exemption under Section 10(23) of the Act. The addition of income was made on account of disallowance

THE DIRECTOR OF INCOME TAX vs. M/S GOKULA EDUCATION FOUNDATION (MEDICAL)

The appeals are dismissed

Bench: S.SUJATHA,N.K.PATIL

144 of the Act denying exemption under Section 10(23) of the Act. The addition of income was made on account of disallowance

THE DIRECTOR OF INCOME TAX EXEMPTIONS vs. AL-AMEEN CHARITABLE FUND TRUST

The appeals are dismissed

Bench: S.SUJATHA,N.K.PATIL

144 of the Act denying exemption under Section 10(23) of the Act. The addition of income was made on account of disallowance

THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX vs. SRI ADICHUNCHUNGIRI

The appeals are dismissed

Bench: S.SUJATHA,N.K.PATIL

144 of the Act denying exemption under Section 10(23) of the Act. The addition of income was made on account of disallowance

COMMISSIONER OF INCOME vs. SRI ADICHUNCHANAGIRI

The appeals are dismissed

Bench: S.SUJATHA,N.K.PATIL

144 of the Act denying exemption under Section 10(23) of the Act. The addition of income was made on account of disallowance

THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX vs. M/S KARNATAKA REDDY JANASANGHA

The appeals are dismissed

Bench: S.SUJATHA,N.K.PATIL

144 of the Act denying exemption under Section 10(23) of the Act. The addition of income was made on account of disallowance

THE DIRECTOR OF INCOME TAX vs. M/S GOKULA EDUCATION FOUNDATION

The appeals are dismissed

Bench: S.SUJATHA,N.K.PATIL

144 of the Act denying exemption under Section 10(23) of the Act. The addition of income was made on account of disallowance