THE PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER vs. M/S OBULAPURAM MINING

Bench: K.SOMASHEKAR,UMESH M ADIGA

19. It is further contended that on the issue of 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

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

Bench: S.SUJATHA,VINEET KOTHARI

19. We have heard the learned counsels at length and given our thoughtful consideration to the rival contentions and the case laws cited at the bar. 20. We are essentially called upon to decide the ambit, scope and parameters of the powers of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) while dealing with the appeals filed before it under Section

SRI N GOVINDARAJU vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER

Appeal stands disposed of

Bench: S.SUJATHA,VINEET SARAN

19 In this background, if we read Section 147 it would be clear that in the phrase ‘and also’ which joins the first and second parts of the section, ‘and’ is conjunctive which is to join the first part with the second part, but ‘also’ is for the second part and would be disjunctive. It segregates the first part from

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

Bench: H.B.PRABHAKARA SASTRY,VINEET KOTHARI

19 / 39 the KVAT Act, while it provides for input tax restrictions stipulates that tax paid on goods as specified in the Fifth Schedule, shall not be deducted in calculating the net tax payable if such Fifth Schedule goods are purchased and put to use for the purpose other than for (i) resale; (ii) manufacture or any other process

THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX vs. PRAVEEN V DODDANAVAR

Bench: SREENIVAS HARISH KUMAR,VINEET KOTHARI

19 / 39 the KVAT Act, while it provides for input tax restrictions stipulates that tax paid on goods as specified in the Fifth Schedule, shall not be deducted in calculating the net tax payable if such Fifth Schedule goods are purchased and put to use for the purpose other than for (i) resale; (ii) manufacture or any other process

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

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

19 / 39 the KVAT Act, while it provides for input tax restrictions stipulates that tax paid on goods as specified in the Fifth Schedule, shall not be deducted in calculating the net tax payable if such Fifth Schedule goods are purchased and put to use for the purpose other than for (i) resale; (ii) manufacture or any other process

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

COFFEEDAY GLOBAL LTD. vs. ADDITIONAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX

In the result, the orders dated 21

Bench: ALOK ARADHE,ASHOK S.KINAGI

2) 17 of the Act while passing the order dated 06.12.2017 on an application for rectification filed by the assessee. 9. It is well settled legal proposition that where interest free funds are available to the assessee and were sufficient to meet its investment, the presumption is that the investments were made from interest free funds available with the assessee

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

2) 17 of the Act while passing the order dated 06.12.2017 on an application for rectification filed by the assessee. 9. It is well settled legal proposition that where interest free funds are available to the assessee and were sufficient to meet its investment, the presumption is that the investments were made from interest free funds available with the assessee

COFFEEDAY GLOBAL LTD. vs. ADDITIONAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX

In the result, the orders dated 21

Bench: ALOK ARADHE,ASHOK S.KINAGI

2) 17 of the Act while passing the order dated 06.12.2017 on an application for rectification filed by the assessee. 9. It is well settled legal proposition that where interest free funds are available to the assessee and were sufficient to meet its investment, the presumption is that the investments were made from interest free funds available with the assessee

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

19 disclosure standards notified under sub-section (2) of section 145. (2) For the purposes of sub-section (1), gain or loss arising on account of the effects of change in foreign exchange rates shall be in respect of all foreign currency transactions, including those relating to - (i) monetary items and non-monetary items. (ii) translation of financial statements

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

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 Disputed Income Disputed tax [i.e., tax @ 33.99% on disputed income] Payable under DTVST Act @s 50% of tax As per Petitioner 42,92,10,516 14,58,88,654 7,29,44,327 As per Revenue 80,19,59,658 27,25,86,088 13,62,93,044 13. A perusal

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 Disputed Income Disputed tax [i.e., tax @ 33.99% on disputed income] Payable under DTVST Act @s 50% of tax As per Petitioner 42,92,10,516 14,58,88,654 7,29,44,327 As per Revenue 80,19,59,658 27,25,86,088 13,62,93,044 13. A perusal

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

The appeals stand disposed of, accordingly

Bench: N.KUMAR,B.SREENIVASE GOWDA

19. Aggrieved by the said order, the revenue preferred an appeal to the Tribunal. The Tribunal taking note of Section 90(1)(a) prior to its amendment held the word “paid” has been defined under Section 43(2) of the Act. The said definition is for the purpose of Section 28 to 41. But the said meaning of the word

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

The appeals stand disposed of, accordingly

Bench: N.KUMAR,B.SREENIVASE GOWDA

19. Aggrieved by the said order, the revenue preferred an appeal to the Tribunal. The Tribunal taking note of Section 90(1)(a) prior to its amendment held the word “paid” has been defined under Section 43(2) of the Act. The said definition is for the purpose of Section 28 to 41. But the said meaning of the word

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

2(a) to Section 263 of the Act, an order is deemed to be erroneous insofar as it is prejudicial to the interests of the Revenue if the order is passed without making enquiries which should have been made. Therefore, where an order is passed after making enquiries, the same cannot be said to be erroneous insofar

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

disallow such claim made by the assessee though duly certified by the prescribed authority by taking recourse to the later portion of sub-clause (ii) of sub-section (4) of Section 43 of the Act. He would summarise his 9 submissions by contending the definition of ‘scientific research’ found in Section 43(4) has been imported to Section