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) and 40(ai) is incorrect and without any basis. He heavily relied upon the fact that the Assessing - 16

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

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

Bench: S.SUJATHA,S VISHWAJITH SHETTY

disallowing the claim under section 40(a)(ia) of the Act. 6. Learned counsel appearing for the Revenue, justifying the impugned order of the Tribunal submitted that, the Airlines Operators while paying Passenger Service Fees [PSF (SC & FC) were retaining the amount - 12 - of 2.5% of the invoice value on account of prompt payment by them to the assessee before

M/S DELHI INTERNATIONAL vs. THE PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER

Bench: S.SUJATHA,S VISHWAJITH SHETTY

disallowing the claim under section 40(a)(ia) of the Act. 6. Learned counsel appearing for the Revenue, justifying the impugned order of the Tribunal submitted that, the Airlines Operators while paying Passenger Service Fees [PSF (SC & FC) were retaining the amount - 12 - of 2.5% of the invoice value on account of prompt payment by them to the assessee before

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

Bench: S.SUJATHA,S VISHWAJITH SHETTY

disallowing the claim under section 40(a)(ia) of the Act. 6. Learned counsel appearing for the Revenue, justifying the impugned order of the Tribunal submitted that, the Airlines Operators while paying Passenger Service Fees [PSF (SC & FC) were retaining the amount - 12 - of 2.5% of the invoice value on account of prompt payment by them to the assessee before

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

Bench: S.SUJATHA,S VISHWAJITH SHETTY

disallowing the claim under section 40(a)(ia) of the Act. 6. Learned counsel appearing for the Revenue, justifying the impugned order of the Tribunal submitted that, the Airlines Operators while paying Passenger Service Fees [PSF (SC & FC) were retaining the amount - 12 - of 2.5% of the invoice value on account of prompt payment by them to the assessee before

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

Bench: S.SUJATHA,S VISHWAJITH SHETTY

disallowing the claim under section 40(a)(ia) of the Act. 6. Learned counsel appearing for the Revenue, justifying the impugned order of the Tribunal submitted that, the Airlines Operators while paying Passenger Service Fees [PSF (SC & FC) were retaining the amount - 12 - of 2.5% of the invoice value on account of prompt payment by them to the assessee before

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

Bench: S.SUJATHA,S VISHWAJITH SHETTY

disallowing the claim under section 40(a)(ia) of the Act. 6. Learned counsel appearing for the Revenue, justifying the impugned order of the Tribunal submitted that, the Airlines Operators while paying Passenger Service Fees [PSF (SC & FC) were retaining the amount - 12 - of 2.5% of the invoice value on account of prompt payment by them to the assessee before

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

16 for the limited purpose the mater was remitted. However, while passing the order dated 06.12.2017, the matter has been reviewed on merits and the finding recorded with regard to Section 36(1)(iii) is a pure finding of fact. 8. We have considered the submissions made by learned counsel for the parties and have perused the record. Twin issues

COFFEEDAY GLOBAL LTD. vs. ADDITIONAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX

In the result, the orders dated 21

Bench: ALOK ARADHE,ASHOK S.KINAGI

16 for the limited purpose the mater was remitted. However, while passing the order dated 06.12.2017, the matter has been reviewed on merits and the finding recorded with regard to Section 36(1)(iii) is a pure finding of fact. 8. We have considered the submissions made by learned counsel for the parties and have perused the record. Twin issues

COFFEEDAY GLOBAL LTD. vs. ADDITIONAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX

In the result, the orders dated 21

Bench: ALOK ARADHE,ASHOK S.KINAGI

16 for the limited purpose the mater was remitted. However, while passing the order dated 06.12.2017, the matter has been reviewed on merits and the finding recorded with regard to Section 36(1)(iii) is a pure finding of fact. 8. We have considered the submissions made by learned counsel for the parties and have perused the record. Twin issues

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

disallow the privilege fee in respect of the assessment years prior to 2014-15, is clearly without reference to any legal provision. The opinion expressed by the Assessing Officer is that the amendment to Section 40(a)(iib) is clarificatory in nature. Therefore, privilege fee could be levied 16

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

Bench: CHIEF JUSTICE,C M JOSHI

disallowance under Section 14A of the Act. 16. As noted above, the AO had denied the exemption under Section 10-AA of the Act on the ground

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

HINDUSTAN AERONAUTICS LIMITED vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER

In the result, the order of the

Bench: ALOK ARADHE,H.T. NARENDRA PRASAD

disallowed a sum of Rs.570.61 Lakhs on the ground that the same was made out of the grants given by Government of India. The expenses incurred by the assessee were towards research and development and therefore, the same were revenue in nature and ought to have been allowed as deduction under Section 37 of the Act. The fact that

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

disallowed a sum of Rs.570.61 Lakhs on the ground that the same was made out of the grants given by Government of India. The expenses incurred by the assessee were towards research and development and therefore, the same were revenue in nature and ought to have been allowed as deduction under Section 37 of the Act. The fact that

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

Bench: S.SUJATHA,VINEET KOTHARI

disallowed the said “Distributable Surplus” paid by the Respondent Assessee CHAMUNDI to DIAGEO under Date of Judgment 25-09-2018 I.T.A.No.155/2016 and connected matters The Pr. Commissioner of Income Tax & Ors. Vs. M/s. Chamundi Winery and Distillery 10/137 Section 37 of the Act and also held that the said income earned out of manufacture and sale of liquor

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

Bench: S.SUJATHA,VINEET KOTHARI

disallowed the said “Distributable Surplus” paid by the Respondent Assessee CHAMUNDI to DIAGEO under Date of Judgment 25-09-2018 I.T.A.No.155/2016 and connected matters The Pr. Commissioner of Income Tax & Ors. Vs. M/s. Chamundi Winery and Distillery 10/137 Section 37 of the Act and also held that the said income earned out of manufacture and sale of liquor