THE PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER vs. M/S OBULAPURAM MINING

Bench: K.SOMASHEKAR,UMESH M ADIGA

2) Disallowance of Expenses under Explanation to section 37(1) and in respect of third issue i.e., addition made on account

M/S FIDELITY BUSINESS SERVICES INDIA PVT LTD vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX

Bench: S.SUJATHA,VINEET KOTHARI

Section 2(22)(e) of the Act was wholly uncalled for and thus the learned counsel for the Assessee urged that the present appeal of the Assessee deserves to be allowed and the substantial question of law deserves to be answered in favour of the Assessee. 41. On the other hand, the learned counsel for the Revenue, Mr. Aravind

PR COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-5 vs. M/S PAGE INDUSTRIES LTD

In the result, the appeal fails and is hereby dismissed

Bench: ALOK ARADHE,R. NATARAJ

disallowance under Section 14A read with Rule 8D(2)(iii) to the extent of Rs.20,51,175/- and disallowance of Rs.74

M/S J K CEMENT WORKS vs. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA

Bench: H.B.PRABHAKARA SASTRY,VINEET KOTHARI

2) as well as Section 12 of the KVAT Act, providing for deduction of input tax credit in respect of the capital goods, both would support the case of the present assessee. We do not find any force in the contention of the learned Additional Government Advocate or the premise taken by the authorities below, that merely because item Cement

THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX vs. PRAVEEN V DODDANAVAR

Bench: SREENIVAS HARISH KUMAR,VINEET KOTHARI

2) as well as Section 12 of the KVAT Act, providing for deduction of input tax credit in respect of the capital goods, both would support the case of the present assessee. We do not find any force in the contention of the learned Additional Government Advocate or the premise taken by the authorities below, that merely because item Cement

THE BAILHONGAL URBAN COOPERATIVE BANK LTD vs. THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX

Bench: S.ABDUL NAZEER,P.S.DINESH KUMAR

2) as well as Section 12 of the KVAT Act, providing for deduction of input tax credit in respect of the capital goods, both would support the case of the present assessee. We do not find any force in the contention of the learned Additional Government Advocate or the premise taken by the authorities below, that merely because item Cement

SRI N GOVINDARAJU vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER

Appeal stands disposed of

Bench: S.SUJATHA,VINEET SARAN

section 45(2) of the Act and denying the benefit of indexation. The reassessment was completed on 4 total income of Rs.29,90,672/-, which was for reasons other than the one recorded in the notice. During the relevant period, the assessee had sold a plot of land measuring 12,430 sq. ft. for a consideration of Rs.74

THE PR. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIT (A) vs. M/S. MANIPAL HEALTH SYSTEMS PVT. LTD.,

Appeal is dismissed

Bench: P.S.DINESH KUMAR,C.M. POONACHA

disallowance made under section 40A(2) of the Act by holding that the assessing authority has not doubted the payment

COFFEEDAY GLOBAL LTD. vs. ADDITIONAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX

In the result, the orders dated 21

Bench: ALOK ARADHE,ASHOK S.KINAGI

disallowance of interest under Section 14A was warranted as regards the very same investments and the facts remained the same in the Assessment Year in question? (v) Whether the tribunal has acted in contravention of the provision of Section 7 254(2

COFFEEDAY GLOBAL LTD. vs. ADDITIONAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX

In the result, the orders dated 21

Bench: ALOK ARADHE,ASHOK S.KINAGI

disallowance of interest under Section 14A was warranted as regards the very same investments and the facts remained the same in the Assessment Year in question? (v) Whether the tribunal has acted in contravention of the provision of Section 7 254(2

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

disallowance of interest under Section 14A was warranted as regards the very same investments and the facts remained the same in the Assessment Year in question? (v) Whether the tribunal has acted in contravention of the provision of Section 7 254(2

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

The appeal stands dismissed

Bench: S.SUJATHA,J.M.KHAZI

disallowed under section 14A cannot be added to the book profits computed under Section 115JB. 10. Similarly, in the case of Commissioner of Income Tax vs. Gokaldas Images (P) Ltd., reported in - 14 - (2020) 429 ITR 526 (Kar.), having regard to Clause (f) of Explanation 1 to Section 115JB(2

M/S NANDI STEELS LIMITED vs. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX

In the result, the findings

Bench: ALOK ARADHE,R. NATARAJ

disallowed the claim of set off of brought forward loss. It is also pointed out that proviso to Section 72(i) was omitted by Finance act, 1999 with effect from 01.04.2000 and for the impugned assessment year 2003-04, the assessee was not required to carry on the business for the purpose of set off of brought forward business loss

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

2), BANGALORE. THIS I.T.A. COMING ON FOR HEARING, THIS DAY, ALOK ARADHE J., DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: JUDGMENT This appeal under Section 260-A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’, for short) has been filed by the revenue. The subject matter of the appeal pertains to the Assessment Year 2009-10. The appeal was admitted

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

Bench: CHIEF JUSTICE,C M JOSHI

2(24) of the Act and this Section defines profit and gains of the undertaking and thus is not eligible for computation under Section 10AA of the Act after the enhancement of income on voluntary TP adjustments by the assessee consequent to APA "? (iv) "Whether on facts and circumstances of the case, the Tribunal's order can be said

M/S WIPRO LIMITED vs. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX

The appeals stand disposed of, accordingly

Bench: N.KUMAR,B.SREENIVASE GOWDA

2) was issued on 09.11.2001. The assessee moved a rectification application u/s 154 for having wrongly claimed deduction u/s 80HHC at 100% instead of 80%. Rectification order was passed on - 18 - 19.02.2002 and the income was determined at Rs.114,72,43,817/- u/s 143(1) read with Section 154. Notice u/s 142(1) was issued on 21.12.2001 with a questionnaire

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

The appeals stand disposed of, accordingly

Bench: N.KUMAR,B.SREENIVASE GOWDA

2) was issued on 09.11.2001. The assessee moved a rectification application u/s 154 for having wrongly claimed deduction u/s 80HHC at 100% instead of 80%. Rectification order was passed on - 18 - 19.02.2002 and the income was determined at Rs.114,72,43,817/- u/s 143(1) read with Section 154. Notice u/s 142(1) was issued on 21.12.2001 with a questionnaire

MANGALORE REFINERY AND PETROCHEMICALS LTD vs. PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX

In the result, I pass the following:-

Bench: The Hon'Ble Mr.Justice S.R.Krishna Kumar

Disallowance under section 40(a)(i): Particulars Amount in Rs. Amount in Rs. Relief allowed by CIT(A) Freight Charges Singapore 13,89,95,282 Turkey 2