THE COMMISSIONER vs. M/S VIJAYA BANK

Bench: ALOK ARADHE,H.T. NARENDRA PRASAD

disallowed the aforesaid amount in terms of Section 14A of the Act. A sum of Rs.3,43,28,658/- being 5% thereof was estimated as expenditure incurred for earning such income. 3. The assessee, thereupon, filed an appeal. The Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) by an order dated 31.05.2011 partly allowed the appeal. Being aggrieved, the revenue as well

THE COMMISSIONER vs. M/S CANARA BANK

In the result, we do not find merit in these

Bench: ALOK ARADHE,H.T. NARENDRA PRASAD

disallowed the same under provisions of Section 14A of the Act?’ 6 3. Learned counsel for the assessee submitted that the substantial questions of law No.1 and 4 are answered against the revenue by judgment dated 17.01.2020 passed by a Bench of this Court in ITA No.97/2010 and connected matter. It is further submitted that the substantial question

THE COMMISSIONER vs. M/S CANARA BANK

In the result, we do not find merit in these

Bench: ALOK ARADHE,H.T. NARENDRA PRASAD

disallowed the same under provisions of Section 14A of the Act?’ 6 3. Learned counsel for the assessee submitted that the substantial questions of law No.1 and 4 are answered against the revenue by judgment dated 17.01.2020 passed by a Bench of this Court in ITA No.97/2010 and connected matter. It is further submitted that the substantial question

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

150, DIAMOND DISTRICT, TOWER B, PENT HOUSE, AIRPORT ROAD, BANGALORE – 560 038. ... RESPONDENT (BY SRI: K.P. KUMAR, SENIOR COUNSEL FOR SRI. T. SURYANARAYANA, ADVOCATE) ***** THESE APPEALS ARE FILED UNDER SEC.260-A OF INCOME TAX ACT 1961, ARISING OUT OF ORDER DATED:25/04/2014 PASSED IN ITA.NO.905/BANG/2013 & CO.NO.105/BANG/2013, FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2006-2007 AND ETC., THESE APPEALS HAVING BEEN RESERVED

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

150, DIAMOND DISTRICT, TOWER B, PENT HOUSE, AIRPORT ROAD, BANGALORE – 560 038. ... RESPONDENT (BY SRI: K.P. KUMAR, SENIOR COUNSEL FOR SRI. T. SURYANARAYANA, ADVOCATE) ***** THESE APPEALS ARE FILED UNDER SEC.260-A OF INCOME TAX ACT 1961, ARISING OUT OF ORDER DATED:25/04/2014 PASSED IN ITA.NO.905/BANG/2013 & CO.NO.105/BANG/2013, FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2006-2007 AND ETC., THESE APPEALS HAVING BEEN RESERVED

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

150, DIAMOND DISTRICT, TOWER B, PENT HOUSE, AIRPORT ROAD, BANGALORE – 560 038. ... RESPONDENT (BY SRI: K.P. KUMAR, SENIOR COUNSEL FOR SRI. T. SURYANARAYANA, ADVOCATE) ***** THESE APPEALS ARE FILED UNDER SEC.260-A OF INCOME TAX ACT 1961, ARISING OUT OF ORDER DATED:25/04/2014 PASSED IN ITA.NO.905/BANG/2013 & CO.NO.105/BANG/2013, FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2006-2007 AND ETC., THESE APPEALS HAVING BEEN RESERVED

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

In the result, the appeals are dismissed

Bench: ALOK ARADHE,H.T. NARENDRA PRASAD

disallowances of deprecation on HTM category of investments by erroneously holding that value of investments made pursuant to SLR requirements of RBI can be allowed as a deduction while computing business income of a banking company even though conversion of securities from investments to Stock in Trade attracts provision of Section 45(2) and also that the Bank

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

In the result, the appeals are dismissed

Bench: ALOK ARADHE,H.T. NARENDRA PRASAD

disallowances of deprecation on HTM category of investments by erroneously holding that value of investments made pursuant to SLR requirements of RBI can be allowed as a deduction while computing business income of a banking company even though conversion of securities from investments to Stock in Trade attracts provision of Section 45(2) and also that the Bank

THE COMMISSIONER OF WEALTH TAX vs. SRI M R SEETHARAM

In the result, the appeals are dismissed

Bench: RAVI MALIMATH,ASHOK S.KINAGI

disallowances of deprecation on HTM category of investments by erroneously holding that value of investments made pursuant to SLR requirements of RBI can be allowed as a deduction while computing business income of a banking company even though conversion of securities from investments to Stock in Trade attracts provision of Section 45(2) and also that the Bank

BLUE COAT NETWORK (INDIA) PRIVATE LIMITED

The appeal is dismissed

Bench: VINEET KOTHARI

150, INFANTRY ROAD BANGALORE-560 001. …RESPONDENT (BY SRI:K K CHAITANYA, ADV) 2 THIS APPEAL IS FILED UNDER SECTION 260-A OF INCOME TAX ACT 1961 ARISING OUT OF ORDER DATED 05.12.2014 PASSED IN ITA NO.516/BANG/2012 FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2007-08 PRAYING TO FORMULATE THE SUBSTANTIAL QUESTION OF LAW STATED ABOVE, ALLOW THE APPEAL AND TO SET ASIDE

THE PR. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIT(A) vs. M/S. PUNE DYNASTY PROJECTS PVT LTD

Appeal is dismissed;

Bench: P.S.DINESH KUMAR,RAMACHANDRA D. HUDDAR

150, INFANTRY ROAD BENGALURU-560 001 PAN:AAECP 1340D …RESPONDENT (BY MS. TANMAYEE RAJKUMAR, ADVOCATE) Digitally signed by YASHODHA N Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - ITA No. 145 of 2020 THIS INCOME TAX APPEAL IS FILED UNDER SEC.260-A OF INCOME TAX ACT 1961, ARISING OUT OF ORDER DATED 26.12.2019 PASSED IN ITA NO.3261/BANG/2018, FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR

THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX vs. M/S MICROLABS LTD

The appeal is dismissed

Bench: B.V.NAGARATHNA,JAYANT PATEL

disallowance under Section 14A as per Rule 8D? 2. We have heard Mr. Aravind, learned counsel appearing for the appellant - Revenue. 3. On the first question, the observations made by the Tribunal in the impugned order from paragraph Nos.12 to 17 are as under: “12. We have heard the submissions of the ld. DR and the ld. counsel

THE PR. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX vs. M/S. PUNE DYNASTY PROJECTS PVT LTD

Appeal is dismissed;

Bench: P.S.DINESH KUMAR,RAMACHANDRA D. HUDDAR

150, INFANTRY ROAD BENGALURU-560 001 PAN: AAECP 1340D …RESPONDENT (BY MS. TANMAYEE RAJKUMAR, ADVOCATE) Digitally signed by YASHODHA N Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - ITA No. 139 of 2020 THIS INCOME TAX APPEAL IS FILED UNDER SEC.260-A OF INCOME TAX ACT 1961, ARISING OUT OF ORDER DATED 26.12.2019 PASSED IN ITA NO. 3260/BANG/2018, FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR

THE PR. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX vs. MRS. VANAJA MATTHEN

The appeal is dismissed

Bench: This Court, Questioning The Order Dated 25.01.2017 In

disallowed deduction under Section 54F of the Income-Tax Act, 1961 (‘the Act’ for short) on the ground that the assessee purchased the property vide sale deeds dated 10.09.2008 and 20.11.2008, however, the construction of the flats have not been completed when the purchase was made under the said sale deeds. Further, it observed that the construction was completed

CGI INFORMATION SYSTEMS vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER

Appeal is allowed

Bench: P.S.DINESH KUMAR,G BASAVARAJA

Section 10A of the Act merely on the basis that the appellant did not challenge the CIT's order for the Assessment year 1998-1999? 3. Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal was right in holding that the expenses incurred towards subscription of Microsoft licenses was capital in nature

CGI INFORMATION SYSTEMS AND MANAGEMENT vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER

Appeal is allowed

Bench: P.S.DINESH KUMAR,G BASAVARAJA

Section 80HHE of the Act of 1961, if foreign exchange fluctuation loss is to be reduced from the 'export turnover', the same ought to be reduced from the 'total turnover' too? 6. Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal was right in - 4 - ITA No. 610 of 2016 holding that

THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX vs. M/S. TRIDENT MINERALS (100% EOU)

The appeal is dismissed

Bench: H.T.NARENDRA PRASAD,B.VEERAPPA

disallowance of excess profits amounting to Rs.4,76,52,385/- due to transactions with sister concerns from computation of the eligible deduction under Section 10B of the Act, was withdrawn by the assessee, when actually it was not so. 2. It is the case of the assessee that they carry business of production, manufacture and export of iron

PR. COMMISSIONER OF vs. M/S THE KARNATAKA STATE CO-OPERATIVE APEX

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

Bench: ALOK ARADHE,HEMANT CHANDANGOUDAR

150/-. The return of income was processed under Section 43(1) of the Act. There was a scrutiny assessment against the original return of income. The proceeding under Section 147 of the Act were initiated and necessary notice was issued to the assessee. The assessee filed return of income in response to the notice under Section