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

disallowance under Section 40(a)(ia) ought to be made is incorrect and erroneous/ As stated by the respondent, the debit to the profit and loss account of Rs.36,34,10,000/- represents trade discounts given to distributors, where transactions are on a principal-to- principal basis and not commission and Section 194H would have no application to discounts. According

COFFEEDAY GLOBAL LTD. vs. ADDITIONAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX

In the result, the orders dated 21

Bench: ALOK ARADHE,ASHOK S.KINAGI

15. The Assessing Officer had disallowed the claim in respect of processing charges on the ground that the same ought to have been capitalized with the loans as they are directly linked to the borrowings and disallowed the same. However, the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) by placing reliance on decision of the Supreme Court in CIT VS. INDIA CEMENTS

COFFEEDAY GLOBAL LTD. vs. ADDITIONAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX

In the result, the orders dated 21

Bench: ALOK ARADHE,ASHOK S.KINAGI

15. The Assessing Officer had disallowed the claim in respect of processing charges on the ground that the same ought to have been capitalized with the loans as they are directly linked to the borrowings and disallowed the same. However, the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) by placing reliance on decision of the Supreme Court in CIT VS. INDIA CEMENTS

PR. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX vs. M/S AMALGAMATED BEAN COFFEE TRADING CO LTD

In the result, the orders dated 21

Bench: ALOK ARADHE,ASHOK S.KINAGI

15. The Assessing Officer had disallowed the claim in respect of processing charges on the ground that the same ought to have been capitalized with the loans as they are directly linked to the borrowings and disallowed the same. However, the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) by placing reliance on decision of the Supreme Court in CIT VS. INDIA CEMENTS

THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX vs. TEXAS INSTRUMENTS INDIA PVT LTD

The appeals are dismissed

Bench: SATISH CHANDRA SHARMA,SURAJ GOVINDARAJ

section shall apply accordingly. 15. We answer the substantial questions as under: 16. Answer to Substantial Question No.1: Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal is right in law in setting aside I.T.A. NO.141 OF 2020 c/w I.T.A. NO.151 OF 2020 46 the disallowance

PR. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-2 vs. M/S.J.J.GLASTRONICS PVT LTD

The appeal stands dismissed

Bench: S.SUJATHA,J.M.KHAZI

disallowance computed under Section 14A of the Act pertains to computation of income under the normal provisions of the Act and cannot be read into the provisions of Section 115JB of the Act pertaining to levy of minimum alternate tax and there is no express provision in clause (f) of Explanation 1 to Section 115JB of the Act to that

THE PR. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, vs. M/S. DELHI INTERNATIONAL AIRPORT PVT. LTD.

Bench: S.SUJATHA,S VISHWAJITH SHETTY

disallowance under Section 40(a)(ia) of the Act. - 18 - 15. The arguments advanced by the learned counsel for the appellant

M/S DELHI INTERNATIONAL AIRPORT LTD vs. THE PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX

Bench: S.SUJATHA,S VISHWAJITH SHETTY

disallowance under Section 40(a)(ia) of the Act. - 18 - 15. The arguments advanced by the learned counsel for the appellant

THE PR. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, vs. M/S. DELHI INTERNATIONAL AIRPORT PVT. LTD.,

Bench: S.SUJATHA,S VISHWAJITH SHETTY

disallowance under Section 40(a)(ia) of the Act. - 18 - 15. The arguments advanced by the learned counsel for the appellant

THE PR. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, vs. M/S. DELHI INTERNATIONAL AIRPORT PVT. LTD.,

Bench: S.SUJATHA,S VISHWAJITH SHETTY

disallowance under Section 40(a)(ia) of the Act. - 18 - 15. The arguments advanced by the learned counsel for the appellant

M/S DELHI INTERNATIONAL AIRPORT LTD vs. THE PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX

Bench: S.SUJATHA,S VISHWAJITH SHETTY

disallowance under Section 40(a)(ia) of the Act. - 18 - 15. The arguments advanced by the learned counsel for the appellant

M/S DELHI INTERNATIONAL vs. THE PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER

Bench: S.SUJATHA,S VISHWAJITH SHETTY

disallowance under Section 40(a)(ia) of the Act. - 18 - 15. The arguments advanced by the learned counsel for the appellant

KARNATAKA STATE BEVERAGES CORPORTION LIMITED vs. THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX

Bench: The Hon’Ble Mr. Justice Anand Byrareddy Writ Petition No.12872 Of 2013 (T-It) Connected With Writ Petition No.14687 Of 2014 (T-It), Writ Petition No.15910 Of 2015 (T-It) & Writ Petition No.17514 Of 2015 (T-It) In W.P.No.12872 Of 2013 Between: Karnataka State Beverages Corporation Limited, Represented By It’S Executive Director (Finance), Sri. Shrikant B Vanahalli, Aged About 57 Years, No.78, Seethalakshmi Towers, Mission Road, Bangalore 560 027. …Petitioner

section specifically disallows any amount paid by way of privilege fee or which is appropriated directly or indirectly from a State Government undertaking by a State Government. Consequently in view of the said provision, no disallowance can be made to the impugned assessment years 2009-2010, 2010-2011, 2011-2012 and 2012-2013, for the reason that the above provision

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 such claim made by the assessee though duly certified by the prescribed authority by taking recourse to the later portion of sub-clause (ii) of sub-section (4) of Section 43 of the Act. He would summarise his 9 submissions by contending the definition of ‘scientific research’ found in Section 43(4) has been imported to Section

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

The appeal stands disposed of as

Bench: SATISH CHANDRA SHARMA,R. NATARAJ

15 question of adding back the amount of disallowances to the book profits does not arise even though bank earned exempt income from tax and as such assessing authority rightly estimated 5% of exempt income as expenditure and disallowed the same under provisions of Section

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

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

THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX vs. M/S. STATE BANK OF MYSORE

In the result, the order passed by the tribunal

Bench: ALOK ARADHE,H.T. NARENDRA PRASAD

disallowed under Section 14A of the Act. However, neither the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) nor the tribunal has recorded any finding whether the bank had made investment in the securities earning exempt income out of surplus funds. Therefore, we are left with no option but to remit the matter to the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals). For the aforementioned