PR COMMISSIONER OF vs. M/S GMR HYDERABAD

Appeals stand disposed of accordingly

Bench: S.SUJATHA,RAVI V HOSMANI

disallowance made under Section 40[a][ia] for non deduction of TDS on payments made to Director’s towards sitting fees by holding that - 16 - the amendment will apply for A.Y.2014-15 onwards?” In ITA No.381/2018: “1. Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law the Tribunal was correct in law in holding that incriminating

THE PR. COMMISIONER INCOME TAX vs. M/S. GMR INFRASTRUCTURE LTD

Appeals stand disposed of accordingly

Bench: S.SUJATHA,RAVI V HOSMANI

disallowance made under Section 40[a][ia] for non deduction of TDS on payments made to Director’s towards sitting fees by holding that - 16 - the amendment will apply for A.Y.2014-15 onwards?” In ITA No.381/2018: “1. Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law the Tribunal was correct in law in holding that incriminating

PR COMMISSIONER OF vs. M/S GMR HYDERABAD

Appeals stand disposed of accordingly

Bench: S.SUJATHA,RAVI V HOSMANI

disallowance made under Section 40[a][ia] for non deduction of TDS on payments made to Director’s towards sitting fees by holding that - 16 - the amendment will apply for A.Y.2014-15 onwards?” In ITA No.381/2018: “1. Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law the Tribunal was correct in law in holding that incriminating

THE PR. COMMISIONER OF INCOME TAX vs. M/S. GMR INFRASTRUCTURE LTD

Appeals stand disposed of accordingly

Bench: S.SUJATHA,RAVI V HOSMANI

disallowance made under Section 40[a][ia] for non deduction of TDS on payments made to Director’s towards sitting fees by holding that - 16 - the amendment will apply for A.Y.2014-15 onwards?” In ITA No.381/2018: “1. Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law the Tribunal was correct in law in holding that incriminating

PR COMMISSIONER OF vs. M/S GMR HYDERABAD

Appeals stand disposed of accordingly

Bench: S.SUJATHA,RAVI V HOSMANI

disallowance made under Section 40[a][ia] for non deduction of TDS on payments made to Director’s towards sitting fees by holding that - 16 - the amendment will apply for A.Y.2014-15 onwards?” In ITA No.381/2018: “1. Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law the Tribunal was correct in law in holding that incriminating

PR COMMISSIONER OF vs. M/S GMR HYDERABAD

Appeals stand disposed of accordingly

Bench: S.SUJATHA,RAVI V HOSMANI

disallowance made under Section 40[a][ia] for non deduction of TDS on payments made to Director’s towards sitting fees by holding that - 16 - the amendment will apply for A.Y.2014-15 onwards?” In ITA No.381/2018: “1. Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law the Tribunal was correct in law in holding that incriminating

PR COMMISSIONER OF vs. M/S GMR HYDERABAD

Appeals stand disposed of accordingly

Bench: S.SUJATHA,RAVI V HOSMANI

disallowance made under Section 40[a][ia] for non deduction of TDS on payments made to Director’s towards sitting fees by holding that - 16 - the amendment will apply for A.Y.2014-15 onwards?” In ITA No.381/2018: “1. Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law the Tribunal was correct in law in holding that incriminating

THE PR. COMMISIONER OF INCOME TAX vs. M/S. GMR INFRASTRUCTURE LTD

Appeals stand disposed of accordingly

Bench: S.SUJATHA,RAVI V HOSMANI

disallowance made under Section 40[a][ia] for non deduction of TDS on payments made to Director’s towards sitting fees by holding that - 16 - the amendment will apply for A.Y.2014-15 onwards?” In ITA No.381/2018: “1. Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law the Tribunal was correct in law in holding that incriminating

SHRI. SHANKARLAL GILADA vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER,

Bench: G.NARENDAR,M.NAGAPRASANNA

disallowed and cannot be treated as business expenditure. Keeping this objective behind Section 14-A of the Act in mind, the said provision has to be interpreted, particularly, the word “in relation to the income” that does not form part of total income. Considered in this hue, the principle of apportionment of expenses comes into play as that

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

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

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

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 VSL MINING COMPANY PVT LTD

Appeal is dismissed as being

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

disallowance of deduction claimed under Section 10B of the IT Act has noticed that the said aspect is covered by a coordinate Bench judgment of this Court in the case of Tata Elxsi Ltd., v. ACIT7. Having regard to the fact that the Tribunal has decided the matter in accordance with a judgment of this Court, the Revenue

SMT SAIRA BANU vs. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX

Bench: ARAVIND KUMAR,VINEET SARAN

disallowed 20% of 6 sale consideration by invoking Section 40A(3) of the Act. In support of his contention, learned counsel for the appellant has relied on the following decisions: i. Tolaram Daga –vs- Commissioner of Income Tax, Assam ([1965 ] 57 ITR (Sh.N.) 9) / [1966] Vol.LIX ITR 632 ii. Attar Singh Gurmukh Singh –vs- Income Tax Officer, Ludhiana

THE PR. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX vs. M/S FIBRES AND FABRICS INTERNATIONAL PVT. LTD.,

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

Bench: ALOK ARADHE,HEMANT CHANDANGOUDAR

151 (SC). 6. On the other hand, learned counsel for the assessee submitted that there was no tangible material before the Assessing Officer to initiate the proceeding under Section 147 of the Act and the reasons recorded by the Assessing Officer do not disclose any tangible material in possession of the Assessing Officer on the basis of which he could

SAINT GOBAIN CRYSTALS & DETECTORS (I) LIMITED vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX

In the result, the order of the tribunal insofar as

Bench: ALOK ARADHE,H.T. NARENDRA PRASAD

disallowed the claim of deduction under Section 10B of the Act inter alia on the ground that in respect of Unit Nos.1 and 2 the assessee was not engaged in the activity of manufacture but was merely engaged in the activity of processing and assembling. In respect of unit No.1, it was also held that time limit for claiming deduction