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 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

SRI N GOVINDARAJU vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER

Appeal stands disposed of

Bench: S.SUJATHA,VINEET SARAN

disallowance of expenditure, were upheld by the Tribunal. Being aggrieved by the said order of the Tribunal, this appeal has been filed, which has been admitted on the following four substantial questions of law: 6 (1) Whether the Tribunal was correct in upholding re- assessment proceedings, when the reason recorded for re-opening of assessment under S.147 of Act itself

COFFEEDAY GLOBAL LTD. vs. ADDITIONAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX

In the result, the orders dated 21

Bench: ALOK ARADHE,ASHOK S.KINAGI

Section 254(2) of the Act which was disposed of by an order dated 06.12.2017 and it was held as under: (i) The claim for disallowance of interest made with regard to investments in the share capital of A.N.Coffeeday, the matter was remitted to the Assessing Officer. (ii) With regard to claim made on interest on borrowed capital attributed

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

Section 254(2) of the Act which was disposed of by an order dated 06.12.2017 and it was held as under: (i) The claim for disallowance of interest made with regard to investments in the share capital of A.N.Coffeeday, the matter was remitted to the Assessing Officer. (ii) With regard to claim made on interest on borrowed capital attributed

COFFEEDAY GLOBAL LTD. vs. ADDITIONAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX

In the result, the orders dated 21

Bench: ALOK ARADHE,ASHOK S.KINAGI

Section 254(2) of the Act which was disposed of by an order dated 06.12.2017 and it was held as under: (i) The claim for disallowance of interest made with regard to investments in the share capital of A.N.Coffeeday, the matter was remitted to the Assessing Officer. (ii) With regard to claim made on interest on borrowed capital attributed

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 ANS CONSTRUCTIONS LTD vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF COMMERCIAL

Bench: The Hon’Ble Mrs.Justice S.Sujatha

disallowed the claim of input tax credit. It is beneficial to refer to the relevant paragraphs which reads thus: “12. It is contended on behalf of the assessee that, once input tax has been paid, by virtue of Section 10 the assessee is entitled to the rebate of the tax against the output tax notwithstanding the fact that such

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

The appeals stand disposed of, accordingly

Bench: N.KUMAR,B.SREENIVASE GOWDA

31 - head profit and gains of business or profession. In respect of the income of the unit qualifying for deduction under Section 10-A, income tax is neither paid nor incurred. The Apex Court in the case of CIT –vs- Williamson Financial Services & Ors. (297 ITR 17) dealing with computation of deduction under Section 80HHC in respect of profits from

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

The appeals stand disposed of, accordingly

Bench: N.KUMAR,B.SREENIVASE GOWDA

31 - head profit and gains of business or profession. In respect of the income of the unit qualifying for deduction under Section 10-A, income tax is neither paid nor incurred. The Apex Court in the case of CIT –vs- Williamson Financial Services & Ors. (297 ITR 17) dealing with computation of deduction under Section 80HHC in respect of profits from

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

31. In the result, I proceed to pass the following: ORDER (1) Writ Petition is hereby allowed. (2) Assessment order dated 31.01.2013 (Annexure-R) and the consequential demand notice dated 31.01.2014 (Annexure-R1) are hereby quashed to the extent of addition made by the assessing Officer by disallowing the deduction under Section

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

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

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