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 of sale of Land, the ITAT set-aside the order of CIT (A) on that issue and restored the matter to A.O. for a fresh decision with the same directions as were given by the tribunal

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

Bench: S.SUJATHA,VINEET KOTHARI

2)(v) of the Income Tax Act and it allowed the expenditure as “current repairs to the existing machinery”. The Apex Court upholding the said Order of the learned Tribunal held that such Order could be passed within its powers under Section 33(4) of the Act to pass such Orders ‘as it thinks fit’. Date of Judgment

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

SRI N GOVINDARAJU vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER

Appeal stands disposed of

Bench: S.SUJATHA,VINEET SARAN

24 justification and explains the contents of the main section, whereas ‘Proviso’ puts a condition on the contents of the main section or qualifies the same. ‘Proviso’ is generally intended to restrain the enacting clause, whereas ‘Explanation’ explains or clarifies the main section. Meaning thereby, ‘Proviso’ limits the scope of the enactment as it puts a condition, whereas ‘Explanation’ clarifies

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

Bench: H.B.PRABHAKARA SASTRY,VINEET KOTHARI

disallowed in the hands of the petitioner assessee. 14. We are fully fortified in our view by the recent decision of another Division Bench of this Court in the case of Hindustan Uniliver Limited Vs. State of Karnataka [2016] 90 VST 236 (Karn), wherein the Division Bench of this Court, relying upon the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court

THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX vs. PRAVEEN V DODDANAVAR

Bench: SREENIVAS HARISH KUMAR,VINEET KOTHARI

disallowed in the hands of the petitioner assessee. 14. We are fully fortified in our view by the recent decision of another Division Bench of this Court in the case of Hindustan Uniliver Limited Vs. State of Karnataka [2016] 90 VST 236 (Karn), wherein the Division Bench of this Court, relying upon the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court

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

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

disallowed in the hands of the petitioner assessee. 14. We are fully fortified in our view by the recent decision of another Division Bench of this Court in the case of Hindustan Uniliver Limited Vs. State of Karnataka [2016] 90 VST 236 (Karn), wherein the Division Bench of this Court, relying upon the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court

M/S CUTCHI MEMON UNION vs. THE DEPUTY DIRECTOR OF INCOME TAX (EXEMPTIONS)

In the result, the appeal is disposed of

Bench: ALOK ARADHE,M.I.ARUN

24(a) as well as what is to be excluded under Section 11 of the Act? 2. Facts leading to filing of the appeal briefly stated are that the assessee is a religious and charitable trust. The assessee filed return of income on 06.09.2007 for Assessment Year 2007-08 declaring ‘NIL’ income. The assessee had shown income from the House

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

24. It is apparent that in a case where the assessee voluntarily computes the ALP pursuant to an APA entered into with CBDT, none of the conditions as set out in sub-section (3) of Section 92C are attracted. It follows that sub-section (4) of Section 92C is not attracted. 25. More importantly, the proviso to sub-section

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) 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 of foreign operations; (iii) forward exchange contracts; (iv) foreign currency translation reserved

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 14.02.2005. A questionnaire was issued on 27.04.2006 calling for certain details and the compliance was fixed on various dates beginning from 19.05.2006. The assessee- company filed written replies along with enclosures. Assessment u/s 143(3) was completed and orders dated 29.12.2006 for assessment year 2004-05 was passed after - 23 - making certain allowances/ disallowances, re-computation

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 14.02.2005. A questionnaire was issued on 27.04.2006 calling for certain details and the compliance was fixed on various dates beginning from 19.05.2006. The assessee- company filed written replies along with enclosures. Assessment u/s 143(3) was completed and orders dated 29.12.2006 for assessment year 2004-05 was passed after - 23 - making certain allowances/ disallowances, re-computation

THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX vs. M/S. IBC KNOWLEDGE PARK PVT. LTD.,

In the result, the appeals filed by the Revenue

Bench: B.V.NAGARATHNA,JAYANT PATEL

2 to the said agreement. On a conjoint reading, it becomes clear that the rental income is income from house property. But the charges received towards provision and maintenance of facilities and services as per Annexure-2 cannot be construed to be income from house property. The said income, in our view, has to be considered as income from - 24

THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX vs. M/S. IBC KNOWLEDGE PARK PVT. LTD.,

In the result, the appeals filed by the Revenue

Bench: B.V.NAGARATHNA,JAYANT PATEL

2 to the said agreement. On a conjoint reading, it becomes clear that the rental income is income from house property. But the charges received towards provision and maintenance of facilities and services as per Annexure-2 cannot be construed to be income from house property. The said income, in our view, has to be considered as income from - 24

THE COMMISIONER OF INCOME-TAX vs. M/S IBC KNOWLEDGE PARK PVT LTD

In the result, the appeals filed by the Revenue

Bench: B.V.NAGARATHNA,JAYANT PATEL

2 to the said agreement. On a conjoint reading, it becomes clear that the rental income is income from house property. But the charges received towards provision and maintenance of facilities and services as per Annexure-2 cannot be construed to be income from house property. The said income, in our view, has to be considered as income from - 24