M/S T T K PRESTIGE LTD vs. THE UNION OF INDIA REPTD BY ITS FINANCE SECRETARY

Bench: The Hon’Ble Mr.Justice P.B. Bajanthri W.P. No.26037/2005 C/W W.P.No.4464/2007 & W.P.No.27087/2005(It)

disallowance method resulted in significant erosion of the tax 21 base. The Finance Act, 2005 has introduced a new levy, namely, the FBT as a surrogate tax on employer, with the objective of resolving the problems enumerated in para 2.1 above, expanding the tax base and maintaining equity between employers. 2. It is submitted that the above legislative intent

THE PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER vs. M/S OBULAPURAM MINING

Bench: K.SOMASHEKAR,UMESH M ADIGA

22,81,141 Mts, was held to be illegal and the illegal production worked out to 40% of the total production. While completing the assessment, for the reasons given in detail, the assessing authority disallowed 40% of the total expenditure claimed towards transportation expenses at Rs.387,76,69,992/- under Section 37(1) of the Act. However, the Tribunal granted

SMT JAMUNA VERNEKAR vs. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX

In the result, the impugned order of the tribunal dated

Bench: ALOK ARADHE,R. NATARAJ

Section 2(22)(e) of the Act. Thus, the appeal preferred by the assessee was allowed. Being aggrieved by the aforesaid order of the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), the revenue filed an appeal before the Tribunal. The Tribunal, by an order dated 31.08.2012, allowed the appeal preferred 6 the revenue. In the aforesaid factual background, the appeal has been

SRI N GOVINDARAJU vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER

Appeal stands disposed of

Bench: S.SUJATHA,VINEET SARAN

22-B) of section 2 of the Act to be the price that the capital asset would ordinarily fetch on sale in the open market on the relevant date. ‘Full value of the consideration’ has not been defined. The legislature has expressly drawn a distinction between the two phrases: ‘full value of the consideration’ and ‘fair market value’. The former

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

Bench: H.B.PRABHAKARA SASTRY,VINEET KOTHARI

22 / 39 13. Thus, while Section 11 of the KVAT Act provides for restriction on input tax credit, in its exception carved out under Section 11(a)(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

THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX vs. PRAVEEN V DODDANAVAR

Bench: SREENIVAS HARISH KUMAR,VINEET KOTHARI

22 / 39 13. Thus, while Section 11 of the KVAT Act provides for restriction on input tax credit, in its exception carved out under Section 11(a)(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

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

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

22 / 39 13. Thus, while Section 11 of the KVAT Act provides for restriction on input tax credit, in its exception carved out under Section 11(a)(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

PR.COMMISSIONER OF vs. M/S JEANS KNIT PVT.LTD

In the result, we do not find any

Bench: ALOK ARADHE,H.T. NARENDRA PRASAD

disallowed the assessee's claim for deduction under Section 10B of the Act. 5. The Assessing Officer inter alia held that assessee is entitled to deduction under Section 10B of the Act only after verification and the contention of the assessee that old machinery from FFIPL was transferred to it only in April 2007 does not deserve acceptance

PR COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-4 vs. M/S JEANS KNIT PVT LTD

In the result, we do not find any

Bench: ALOK ARADHE,H.T. NARENDRA PRASAD

disallowed the assessee's claim for deduction under Section 10B of the Act. 5. The Assessing Officer inter alia held that assessee is entitled to deduction under Section 10B of the Act only after verification and the contention of the assessee that old machinery from FFIPL was transferred to it only in April 2007 does not deserve acceptance

PR COMMISSIONER OF vs. M/S JEANS KNIT PVT LTD

In the result, we do not find any

Bench: ALOK ARADHE,H.T. NARENDRA PRASAD

disallowed the assessee's claim for deduction under Section 10B of the Act. 5. The Assessing Officer inter alia held that assessee is entitled to deduction under Section 10B of the Act only after verification and the contention of the assessee that old machinery from FFIPL was transferred to it only in April 2007 does not deserve acceptance

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 on the ground that in terms of proviso to Section 36(1)(iii) which was incorporated in the At with effect form 01.04.2004 the interest cost ought to have been capitalized. 21 12. It is pertinent to mention here that prior to amendment of Section 36(1)(iii) vide Finance Act, 2003, it is a well settled proposition

COFFEEDAY GLOBAL LTD. vs. ADDITIONAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX

In the result, the orders dated 21

Bench: ALOK ARADHE,ASHOK S.KINAGI

disallowance on the ground that in terms of proviso to Section 36(1)(iii) which was incorporated in the At with effect form 01.04.2004 the interest cost ought to have been capitalized. 21 12. It is pertinent to mention here that prior to amendment of Section 36(1)(iii) vide Finance Act, 2003, it is a well settled proposition

COFFEEDAY GLOBAL LTD. vs. ADDITIONAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX

In the result, the orders dated 21

Bench: ALOK ARADHE,ASHOK S.KINAGI

disallowance on the ground that in terms of proviso to Section 36(1)(iii) which was incorporated in the At with effect form 01.04.2004 the interest cost ought to have been capitalized. 21 12. It is pertinent to mention here that prior to amendment of Section 36(1)(iii) vide Finance Act, 2003, it is a well settled proposition

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

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

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

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

The appeals stand disposed of, accordingly

Bench: N.KUMAR,B.SREENIVASE GOWDA

22. Sri N.Venkataraman, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the assessee assailing the impugned order contended that a reading of Section 90 makes it clear that Section 90(1)(a)(i) provides, if the income is subjected to tax, both in India and in the foreign country, the foreign income taxes paid attributable to such income is allowed as credit

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

The appeals stand disposed of, accordingly

Bench: N.KUMAR,B.SREENIVASE GOWDA

22. Sri N.Venkataraman, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the assessee assailing the impugned order contended that a reading of Section 90 makes it clear that Section 90(1)(a)(i) provides, if the income is subjected to tax, both in India and in the foreign country, the foreign income taxes paid attributable to such income is allowed as credit