THE PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER vs. M/S OBULAPURAM MINING

Bench: K.SOMASHEKAR,UMESH M ADIGA

Disallowance under Section 37(1), the Tribunal has grossly erred in deleting the addition made by the Assessing Authority under section 37(1) of the Act towards the expenses claimed on its illegal mining activity. The Tribunal has grossly erred in rejecting the finding of facts on record relied upon by the Assessing Authority while making this addition. 20. Based

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

Bench: S.SUJATHA,VINEET KOTHARI

14. Mr. Percy Pardiwala, the learned Senior Counsel appearing for the Appellant- Assessee Company vehemently submitted before us that the Tribunal has exceeded its jurisdiction and vide para 7 of the Order Date of Judgment :23-07-2018 I.T.A.No.512/2017 M/s. Fidelity Business Services India Pvt. Ltd., Vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income-Tax, & Anr. 13/86 quoted above, it has unnecessarily

SHRI. SHANKARLAL GILADA vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER,

Bench: G.NARENDAR,M.NAGAPRASANNA

14. 9. The appellant has contended that he has made investments in the shares of companies, which were the tax exempt investments, and the appellant has not earned any tax exempt incomes during the relevant years, namely, 2012-13 and 2013-14, from any of the tax exempt investments. The disallowance made by the Assessing Officer under Section

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

Bench: H.B.PRABHAKARA SASTRY,VINEET KOTHARI

14. Date of Order: 23.03.2017 STRP Nos.100001, 100002, 100003 of 2017 M/s.J.K. Cement Works, Bagalkot Vs. The State of Karnataka 15 / 39 (7) tax paid under sub-section (2) of Section 3 on the purchase of fuel; (8) tax paid under sub-section (2) of Section 3 on the purchase of goods excluding fuel, until output tax is payable

THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX vs. PRAVEEN V DODDANAVAR

Bench: SREENIVAS HARISH KUMAR,VINEET KOTHARI

14. Date of Order: 23.03.2017 STRP Nos.100001, 100002, 100003 of 2017 M/s.J.K. Cement Works, Bagalkot Vs. The State of Karnataka 15 / 39 (7) tax paid under sub-section (2) of Section 3 on the purchase of fuel; (8) tax paid under sub-section (2) of Section 3 on the purchase of goods excluding fuel, until output tax is payable

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

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

14. Date of Order: 23.03.2017 STRP Nos.100001, 100002, 100003 of 2017 M/s.J.K. Cement Works, Bagalkot Vs. The State of Karnataka 15 / 39 (7) tax paid under sub-section (2) of Section 3 on the purchase of fuel; (8) tax paid under sub-section (2) of Section 3 on the purchase of goods excluding fuel, until output tax is payable

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

The appeals stand disposed of, accordingly

Bench: N.KUMAR,B.SREENIVASE GOWDA

14,066/- and advance tax payment of Rs.59,50,80,000/-. The assessee claimed refund of Rs.17,12,21,725/-. The return of income was processed u/s 143(1) on 31.01.2005 and the case was selected for scrutiny and notice u/s 143(2) was issued on 14.02.2005. A questionnaire was issued on 27.04.2006 calling for certain details and the compliance

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

The appeals stand disposed of, accordingly

Bench: N.KUMAR,B.SREENIVASE GOWDA

14,066/- and advance tax payment of Rs.59,50,80,000/-. The assessee claimed refund of Rs.17,12,21,725/-. The return of income was processed u/s 143(1) on 31.01.2005 and the case was selected for scrutiny and notice u/s 143(2) was issued on 14.02.2005. A questionnaire was issued on 27.04.2006 calling for certain details and the compliance

SRI N GOVINDARAJU vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER

Appeal stands disposed of

Bench: S.SUJATHA,VINEET SARAN

14 and found to be valid, then in either case, such notice is to be treated as valid and final. Since the validity of the notice issued under section 148(2) can be challenged or is subject to judicial scrutiny, in our view, the assessment or reassessment of ‘any other income’ in the case of a validly issued notice cannot

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

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

14 section specifically disallows any amount paid by way of privilege fee or which is appropriated directly or indirectly from a State Government undertaking by a State Government. Consequently in view of the said provision, no disallowance can be made to the impugned assessment years 2009-2010, 2010-2011, 2011-2012 and 2012-2013, for the reason that the above

COFFEEDAY GLOBAL LTD. vs. ADDITIONAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX

In the result, the orders dated 21

Bench: ALOK ARADHE,ASHOK S.KINAGI

disallowed irrespective of whether the same is towards extension or expansion of business. It is also urged that expression 'expansion' and 'extension' connote different meaning and the legislature in its wisdom has used the aforesaid expressions differently. In this connection, our attention was invited to Section 80-IC(2)(b) and 80-IE(2)(ii) wherein the term 'expansion

COFFEEDAY GLOBAL LTD. vs. ADDITIONAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX

In the result, the orders dated 21

Bench: ALOK ARADHE,ASHOK S.KINAGI

disallowed irrespective of whether the same is towards extension or expansion of business. It is also urged that expression 'expansion' and 'extension' connote different meaning and the legislature in its wisdom has used the aforesaid expressions differently. In this connection, our attention was invited to Section 80-IC(2)(b) and 80-IE(2)(ii) wherein the term 'expansion

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

disallowed irrespective of whether the same is towards extension or expansion of business. It is also urged that expression 'expansion' and 'extension' connote different meaning and the legislature in its wisdom has used the aforesaid expressions differently. In this connection, our attention was invited to Section 80-IC(2)(b) and 80-IE(2)(ii) wherein the term 'expansion

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

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

CHITTHARANJAN A DASANNACHARYA vs. THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-V

In the result, the appeal is allowed

Bench: ALOK ARADHE,H.T. NARENDRA PRASAD

14) of the Act? iii. The Hon'ble Tribunal was right in concluding that cashless exercise of stock options does not constitute transfer of a long term capital asset under Section 2(47) of the Act? iv. The Hon'ble Tribunal was right in holding that the difference between the option/exercise price of the stock option and the fair market

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

disallowance under Section 14A of the Act, the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) upheld the order of the Assessing Officer. In the result, the appeal preferred by the assessee was partly allowed. The assessee as well as the revenue filed appeals before the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal against the order of Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals). The Tribunal