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

The appeal stands dismissed

Bench: S.SUJATHA,J.M.KHAZI

154. [(1) With a view to rectifying any mistake apparent from the record an income-tax authority referred to, in section 116 may,- (a) amend any order passed by it under the provisions of this Act; (b) amend any intimation or deemed intimation under sub- section (1) of section 143; (c) amend any intimation under sub-section (1) of section

COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-III vs. M/S SYNDICATE BANK

The appeals are disposed of

Bench: ALOK ARADHE,RAVI V HOSMANI

154 of the Act was passed on 17.02.2003, by which Minimum Alternative Tax credit of Rs.68,07,83,946/- was withdrawn. While going through computation of income, it was found that net loss of Rs.8,17,44,119/- under long term capital loss after set off of short term capital gain of Rs.51,06,737/-. According to Assessing Officer

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

154/- treated as capital work in progress was held as expenditures incurred on incomplete projects as the new products have not yet been developed and as such, do not qualify for deduction as revenue expenditure and accordingly, the weighted deduction claimed at ` 13,72,23,231/- came to be disallowed. 24. Thus, an amount

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 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

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 COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX vs. M/S MWP LTD

Bench: N.KUMAR,RATHNAKALA

disallowing the said claim of 4 Rs.4,40,00,000-00. Thereafter it was observed in the end of the order that ‘Penalty under u/s 271(1)(c) initiated separately’. 3. The assessee contested the said proceedings by contending that on the date of levy of penalty, the assessee ceased to exist inasmuch as the same was merged with

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

1)(va) of the Act and upheld the addition with regard to disallowance under Section 14A of the Act read with Rule 8D of the Rules. In the aforesaid factual background, this appeal has been filed. 4. Learned Senior counsel for the assessee submitted that the Assessing Officer has not recorded the satisfaction which is a mandatory requirement as prescribed

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

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

The appeal stands dismissed

Bench: SATISH CHANDRA SHARMA,S VISHWAJITH SHETTY

1) of section 143, as the case may be, and the provisions of section 154 shall, so far as may be, apply thereto: Provided that the credit of tax which was under dispute shall be allowed for the year in which such income is offered to tax or assessed to tax in India.” ITA 273/2019 5 5. Learned Counsel

M/S YENEPOYA RESINS & CHEMICALS vs. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX

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

Bench: ALOK ARADHE,RAVI V HOSMANI

disallowing the benefit to the appellant as claimed by it. It is also submitted that infact the substantial questions of law framed by this Court do not arise for consideration in this appeal. 6. We have considered the submissions made by the learned counsel for the parties and have perused the 8 record. From perusal of Section 36(1

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 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

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

disallowed the claim for deduction under Section 14A of the Act and no interference in this appeal is called for. 4. We have considered the submissions made by the learned counsel for the parties and have perused the record. Before proceeding further, it is apposite to take note of the relevant extract of Section 14A of the Act, which reads

PR. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX vs. M/S CHAMUNDI WINERY AND DISTILLERY

Bench: S.SUJATHA,VINEET KOTHARI

1 CIT Vs. Shoorji Vallabhdas & Co. 46 ITR 144 (SC) 01-03 2 Godhra Electricity Co. Ltd Vs. CIT 225 ITR 746 (SC) 04-11 13 CIT Vs. Chemosyn Ltd 371 ITR 427 (Bom) 75-79 14 Poorna Electric Supply Co. Ltd Vs. CIT [1965] 56 ITR 521 (SC) 80-85 17 CIT Vs. Chamanlal Mangaldas

THE PR. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (4) vs. M/S CHAMUNDI WINERY AND DISTILLERY

Bench: S.SUJATHA,VINEET KOTHARI

1 CIT Vs. Shoorji Vallabhdas & Co. 46 ITR 144 (SC) 01-03 2 Godhra Electricity Co. Ltd Vs. CIT 225 ITR 746 (SC) 04-11 13 CIT Vs. Chemosyn Ltd 371 ITR 427 (Bom) 75-79 14 Poorna Electric Supply Co. Ltd Vs. CIT [1965] 56 ITR 521 (SC) 80-85 17 CIT Vs. Chamanlal Mangaldas

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