THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX vs. PRAVEEN V DODDANAVAR

Bench: SREENIVAS HARISH KUMAR,VINEET KOTHARI

x 5. Furniture including slotted angles and ready to assemble parts of furniture, stationery articles including paper, sanitary fittings, cement and other construction materials including bricks, timber, wood, glass, mirrors, roofing materials, stones, tiles and paints, toilet articles. ” 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

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

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

x 5. Furniture including slotted angles and ready to assemble parts of furniture, stationery articles including paper, sanitary fittings, cement and other construction materials including bricks, timber, wood, glass, mirrors, roofing materials, stones, tiles and paints, toilet articles. ” 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

M/S COURSE5 INTELLIGENCE PVT. LTD., vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER

Appeals stand disposed of, as indicated above

Bench: S.SUJATHA,RAVI V HOSMANI

disallowance on account of non deduction of tax under 5 Section 195 in violation of a specific provisions of the Act and should not be eligible for incentive under Section 10A? 3. Whether the Tribunal was justified on the facts and circumstances of the case the Tribunal is right in law in directing the assessing authority to exclude the leased

THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX vs. M/S. STATE BANK OF MYSORE

In the result, the order passed by the tribunal

Bench: ALOK ARADHE,H.T. NARENDRA PRASAD

2(24)(x) read with Section 36(va) of the Act? (iii) Whether the Appellate Authorities were correct in holding that the Assessing Officer has not discharged his burden of proving that the entire income under investment is from the investments made by utilizing borrowed funds, when 80% of the funds employed in the business are borrowed funds and recorded

THE PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX vs. M/S NIRANI SUGARS LTD.,

In the result, the impugned orders passed by

Bench: ALOK ARADHE,P.G.M.PATIL

24,10,101/- towards excess claim of depreciation. 4. Being aggrieved, the assessee filed an appeal before the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals). The Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), by an order dated 22.05.2013 upheld the disallowance of depreciation. The assessee thereupon approached the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal. The Tribunal, by an order dated 19.02.2015 has allowed the appeal preferred

THE PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX vs. M/S NIRANI SUGARS LTD.,

In the result, the impugned orders passed by

Bench: ALOK ARADHE,P.G.M.PATIL

24,10,101/- towards excess claim of depreciation. 4. Being aggrieved, the assessee filed an appeal before the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals). The Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), by an order dated 22.05.2013 upheld the disallowance of depreciation. The assessee thereupon approached the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal. The Tribunal, by an order dated 19.02.2015 has allowed the appeal preferred

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

The appeals stand disposed of, accordingly

Bench: N.KUMAR,B.SREENIVASE GOWDA

disallowed on the ground that the DTAA with USA and Canada shows that the claim is admissible only for the taxes paid under Income Tax Act in India and Federal tax in USA and Canada. In coming to the said conclusion the authorities have failed to notice Section 91 of the Act. Statutorily the assessee would be entitled to deduction

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

The appeals stand disposed of, accordingly

Bench: N.KUMAR,B.SREENIVASE GOWDA

disallowed on the ground that the DTAA with USA and Canada shows that the claim is admissible only for the taxes paid under Income Tax Act in India and Federal tax in USA and Canada. In coming to the said conclusion the authorities have failed to notice Section 91 of the Act. Statutorily the assessee would be entitled to deduction

THE PR. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, vs. M/S. DELHI INTERNATIONAL AIRPORT PVT. LTD.,

Bench: S.SUJATHA,S VISHWAJITH SHETTY

x Section 40(a)(ia) of the Act during the relevant period reads thus; “any interest, commission or brokerage, rent, royalty, fees for professional services or fees for technical services payable to a resident, or amounts payable to a contractor or sub- contractor, being resident, for carrying out any work (including supply of labour for carrying out any work

M/S DELHI INTERNATIONAL vs. THE PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER

Bench: S.SUJATHA,S VISHWAJITH SHETTY

x Section 40(a)(ia) of the Act during the relevant period reads thus; “any interest, commission or brokerage, rent, royalty, fees for professional services or fees for technical services payable to a resident, or amounts payable to a contractor or sub- contractor, being resident, for carrying out any work (including supply of labour for carrying out any work

THE PR. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, vs. M/S. DELHI INTERNATIONAL AIRPORT PVT. LTD.

Bench: S.SUJATHA,S VISHWAJITH SHETTY

x Section 40(a)(ia) of the Act during the relevant period reads thus; “any interest, commission or brokerage, rent, royalty, fees for professional services or fees for technical services payable to a resident, or amounts payable to a contractor or sub- contractor, being resident, for carrying out any work (including supply of labour for carrying out any work

THE PR. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, vs. M/S. DELHI INTERNATIONAL AIRPORT PVT. LTD.,

Bench: S.SUJATHA,S VISHWAJITH SHETTY

x Section 40(a)(ia) of the Act during the relevant period reads thus; “any interest, commission or brokerage, rent, royalty, fees for professional services or fees for technical services payable to a resident, or amounts payable to a contractor or sub- contractor, being resident, for carrying out any work (including supply of labour for carrying out any work

M/S DELHI INTERNATIONAL AIRPORT LTD vs. THE PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX

Bench: S.SUJATHA,S VISHWAJITH SHETTY

x Section 40(a)(ia) of the Act during the relevant period reads thus; “any interest, commission or brokerage, rent, royalty, fees for professional services or fees for technical services payable to a resident, or amounts payable to a contractor or sub- contractor, being resident, for carrying out any work (including supply of labour for carrying out any work

M/S DELHI INTERNATIONAL AIRPORT LTD vs. THE PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX

Bench: S.SUJATHA,S VISHWAJITH SHETTY

x Section 40(a)(ia) of the Act during the relevant period reads thus; “any interest, commission or brokerage, rent, royalty, fees for professional services or fees for technical services payable to a resident, or amounts payable to a contractor or sub- contractor, being resident, for carrying out any work (including supply of labour for carrying out any work

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. ITA.Nos.410-412/2014 are filed by the assessee, while ITA.Nos.403/2009 C/w. ITA.Nos.402/2009, 394/2014 & 271/2015, 399/2014, 400/2014 & 351/2015, 402/2014 & 352/2015 are filed by the Revenue. 3. By order dated 3/8/2015, the appeals filed by the assessee were admitted on the following substantial questions of law: a) Whether the Tribunal was right in holding that the initiation

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. ITA.Nos.410-412/2014 are filed by the assessee, while ITA.Nos.403/2009 C/w. ITA.Nos.402/2009, 394/2014 & 271/2015, 399/2014, 400/2014 & 351/2015, 402/2014 & 352/2015 are filed by the Revenue. 3. By order dated 3/8/2015, the appeals filed by the assessee were admitted on the following substantial questions of law: a) Whether the Tribunal was right in holding that the initiation

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. ITA.Nos.410-412/2014 are filed by the assessee, while ITA.Nos.403/2009 C/w. ITA.Nos.402/2009, 394/2014 & 271/2015, 399/2014, 400/2014 & 351/2015, 402/2014 & 352/2015 are filed by the Revenue. 3. By order dated 3/8/2015, the appeals filed by the assessee were admitted on the following substantial questions of law: a) Whether the Tribunal was right in holding that the initiation

THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX vs. M/S AMCO POWER SYSTEMS LTD.,

Bench: B.MANOHAR,VINEET SARAN

x. 27/07/2004 Rs. 2,00,000 xi. 06/09/2004 Rs. 3,00,000 xii. 10/12/2004 Rs. 5,00,000 xiii. 09/03/2005 Rs. 10,000 xiv. 31/01/2006 Rs. 3,72,00,000 Total Rs. 5,00,00,000 6 4. For the assessment year 2003-04, the facts of which are alone being considered in this appeal, the respondent-assessee filed