M/S KHODAY INDIA LTD vs. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX

In the result, the orders passed by the Assessing

Bench: ALOK ARADHE,HEMANT CHANDANGOUDAR

Section 14A of the Act is not attracted to the facts of the case as there is no suo motu disallowance. In this connection, reliance has been placed on decision of the Supreme Court in 'MAXOPP INVESTMENT LTD. VS. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME 8 TAX, NEW DELHI', (2018) 91 TAXMANN.COM 154

PR.COMMISSIONER OF INCOMETAX-2 vs. M/S.EYGBS (INDIA) PVT LTD

Bench: CHIEF JUSTICE,C M JOSHI

disallowance was founded on the proviso to Section 92C(4) of the Act. - 12 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:36360-DB ITA No. 107 of 2025 C/W ITA No. 106 of 2025 17. It is material to note that the TP adjustments are made pursuant to the APA entered into by the Assessee with CBDT. Section 92CC

THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, vs. M/S CORPORATION BANK

In the result, the third substantial question of law is also answered

Bench: ALOK ARADHE,H.T. NARENDRA PRASAD

disallowance under Section 36(1)(vii) of the Act. 3. The assessee thereupon filed an appeal before the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) who by an order dated 18.07.2013 partly allowed the appeal preferred by the assessee. The revenue thereupon filed an appeal before the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (hereinafter referred to as 'the tribunal' for short). The tribunal

M/S KODAGU DISTRICT CO-OPERATIVE CENTRAL BANK LTD vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX

In the result, the order passed by the Assessing

Bench: ALOK ARADHE,R. NATARAJ

Section 154 of the Act for any Assessment Year. 5. In the instant case, the Assessing Officer in Paragraph 5 of the order has dealt with the claim of the assessee with regard to disallowance

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

disallowed the deduction claimed by the assessee under Section 35(2AB) of the Act on the following grounds: 37 (i) assessee has incurred expenditure of ` 13,95,73,315/- in respect of incompleted projects as the new products have not yet been developed; (ii) ` 11,00,79,095/- which are treated as capital expenditure by the assessee represents know- how/technology

GMR INFRASTRUCTURE LIMITED vs. THE DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX

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

Bench: ALOK ARADHE,HEMANT CHANDANGOUDAR

disallowance of Rs.4,94,32,158/- under section 14A of the Act?" 2. Facts leading to filing of this appeal briefly stated are that the appellant is a Company incorporated under the Companies Act, 1956 and is engaged in promotion of infrastructure developments. The appellant filed its return of income for the Assessment Year 2007-08 declaring returned loss

THE PR COMMISSIONER OF vs. M/S MAHAVEER CALYX

Bench: SATISH CHANDRA SHARMA,V SRISHANANDA

disallowance under Section 36(1)(iii) holding that the advances to its subsidiaries were in the normal course of business, for business purposes without appreciating that as the funds from the overdraft account were utilized to make interest - free advances for acquiring lands, property advances? 6. While dealing with the said substantial questions of law, the Division Bench of this

PR. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX - 5 vs. M/S NAM ESTATES PRIVATE LIMITED

The appeal stands dismissed

Bench: SATISH CHANDRA SHARMA,S VISHWAJITH SHETTY

disallowance, irrespective of the fact whether any such income has been earned during the financial year or not?” 4. Learned Counsel for the parties have drawn the attention of this Court towards Section 14A of the I.T.Act and the same reads as under: “14A) Where in the assessment for any previous year or in any intimation or deemed intimation under

M/S SUBEX LTD vs. THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-III,

In the result, appeal is partly allowed as indicated

Bench: S.SUJATHA,RAVI V HOSMANI

154 of the Act, the assessee cannot contend, initiation of revisional proceedings under Section 263 of the Act for the assessment year 2008-09 sans disturbing the assessment order relating to the assessment year 2007-08 is bad in law. Section 35D of the Act deals with the extension of the - 8 - undertaking, not expansion. Thus, it was argued that

THE PR. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX vs. M/S KIDS KEMP

In the result, the appeal fails and is hereby dismissed

Bench: ALOK ARADHE,HEMANT CHANDANGOUDAR

Section 154 of the Act was served on the assessee by which it was proposed to disallow the unabsorbed depreciation

SMT M. R. PRABHAVATHY vs. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER

In the result, the appeal fails and is hereby dismissed

Bench: ARAVIND KUMAR,E.S.INDIRESH

Section 154 of the Act was served on the assessee by which it was proposed to disallow the unabsorbed depreciation

THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, vs. SHRIDHAR SHANTINATH PATRAVALI,

Bench: This Court : I. Whether On Facts & In Law The Tribunal Is Right In Ignoring The Provisions Of Second & Third Provisos To Section 194C(3), As Per Which The Assessee Respondent Was Under Obligation To Furnish Particulars Of The Declaration Filed By The Sub-Contractors In Form No.15-I Within Due Date I.E., 30.06.2008, In The Manner Prescribed I.E., Form No. 15J, To The Prescribed Authority & Failure To Do So, Attracts Violation Of Provisions Of Section 194C(3) Viz., Disallowance Under Section 40(A)(Ia)?

Section 263 of the Act by determining the revised income at Rs.57,56,290/- , along with other additions, an addition of Rs.48,61,154/- was also made to the total income of the assessee. The latter amount is the amount of disallowance

THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX vs. M/S QUEST GLOBAL ENGINEERING SERVICES PVT. LTD.,

In the result, we don to find any

Bench: ALOK ARADHE,R. NATARAJ

154 (SC), and has held that aforesaid decision does not deal with issue of applicability of Section 14A of the Act whereas decision of 9 the Supreme Court in MAXOPP INVESTMENT, supra deals with Section 14A of the Act only. In this connection, attention has been invited to paragraphs 15, 16 and 40 of the aforesaid decision. Therefore, the second

THE PR COMMISSIONER OF vs. M/S MAJESTIC DEVELOPERS

Bench: SATISH CHANDRA SHARMA,V SRISHANANDA

disallowance under Section 36(1)(iii) holding that the advances to its subsidiaries were in the normal course of business, for business purposes without appreciating that as the funds from the overdraft account were utilized to make interest - free advances for acquiring lands, property advances? 6. While dealing with the said substantial questions of law, the Division Bench of this

M/S PRESTIGE ESTATES PROJECTS LTD. vs. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER

In the result, the appeal is disposed of

Bench: ALOK ARADHE,H.T. NARENDRA PRASAD

DISALLOWANCE U/S 14A IN A SUM OF RS. 97,154. THIS I.T.A. COMING ON FOR HEARING, THIS DAY, ALOK ARADHE J., DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: JUDGMENT Mr.Ashok A.Kulakarni, learned counsel for the assessee. Mr.K.V.Aravind, learned counsel for the revenue. 2. This appeal under Section

THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX vs. SYNDICATE BANK

Bench: ALOK ARADHE,RAVI V HOSMANI

disallowance, which is in relationship with Tax exempt income under Section 14A of the Act. In support of aforesaid submissions, reliance has been placed on decision of the Supreme Court in ‘COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX VS. WALFORT SHARE & STOCK BROKERS (P) LTD.’, (2010) 326 ITR 1, ‘GODREJ & BOYCE MANUFACTURING COMPANY LTD. VS. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME

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)

Section 154 of the Act against the assessment order dated 31.03.2014. The Assessing Officer, by order dated 17.10.2014 determined the total income of the petitioner at Rs.302,91,01,348/- and total tax payable is at Rs.44,05,30,063/-. 5 The petitioner having apprehension that the respondent may take coercive steps to recover the disputed demand

ZAMEER MIRJA vs. THE JOINT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX

Bench: B.MANOHAR,K.SREEDHAR RAO

154 on the ground that the exemption granted under Section 54F is incorrect and that the assessee would be entitled to exemption only under Section 54 and the exemption granted towards Rs.20,00,000/- was disallowed

THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX vs. INDUSTRIAL HYDRAULICS PVT LTD

In the result, this appeal is allowed

Bench: B.S PATIL,P.S.DINESH KUMAR

154 of the Act on 12.08.1996 rejecting the relief under Section 80-IA. The said order was challenged before the appellate authority and the appellate authority, by order dated 19.03.1997, set aside the order of the Assessing Officer. Thereafter, the Assessing Officer has issued notice under Section 148 of the Act and reopened the assessment. The contention of the assessee