THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX vs. TEXAS INSTRUMENTS INDIA PVT LTD

The appeals are dismissed

Bench: SATISH CHANDRA SHARMA,SURAJ GOVINDARAJ

37 (c) any other workman employed for a period of less than thee hundred days during the previous year; (iii) “workman” shall have the meaning assigned to it in Clause (s) of section 2 of the Industrial Dispute Act, 1947 (14 if 1947). As amended by Finance Act, 2020 Taxation Laws (Amendment) Act, 2019 Deduction in respect of employment

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

Bench: S.SUJATHA,VINEET KOTHARI

37. Further, he drew our attention to Section 115-O and Section 115-Q of the Act, particularly, the Explanation below Section 115-Q of the Act which stands amended by Finance Act 2018, with effect from Date of Judgment :23-07-2018 I.T.A.No.512/2017 M/s. Fidelity Business Services India Pvt. Ltd., Vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income-Tax, & Anr. 35/86

THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX vs. ING VYSYA BANK LTD

In the result, this appeal is allowed in part,

Bench: B.MANOHAR,D.V.SHYLENDRA KUMAR

disallowed the claim made by the assessee regarding entertainment expenditure of Rs.16,21,016/- on the basis that 50% should be treated a expenditure relating to staff and cannot be brought 4 under the rigor of section 37(2

THE PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER vs. M/S OBULAPURAM MINING

Bench: K.SOMASHEKAR,UMESH M ADIGA

2 This ITA is filed under Section 260A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 praying to set aside the orders passed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ‘C’ Bench, Bengaluru in ITA No.653 (Bang) 2015, and confirm the order passed by the Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle-1(3), Bengaluru. This ITA having been heard and reserved

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

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

37,88,047 13 AY 2009-10: Disallowance under section 40(a)(i): Particulars Amount in Rs. Amount in Rs. Relief allowed by CIT(A) Freight Charges Singapore 13,89,95,282 Turkey 2

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

37,88,047 13 AY 2009-10: Disallowance under section 40(a)(i): Particulars Amount in Rs. Amount in Rs. Relief allowed by CIT(A) Freight Charges Singapore 13,89,95,282 Turkey 2

THE PR COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX vs. M/S MPHASIS LTD

The appeal is dismissed accordingly

Bench: SATISH CHANDRA SHARMA,V SRISHANANDA

disallowance of foreign exchange loss on forward contract. 13 15. Learned counsel for the revenue has argued before this Court that such loss is a notional and contingent and has to be treated as speculative loss in terms of Section 43(5) of the Income tax Act. He has also argued before this Court that the Tribunal without examining

SMT. PUNEETHA @ PUNEETHA B. A. vs. SRI. D. RAVI

The appeal is dismissed accordingly

Bench: R DEVDAS

disallowance of foreign exchange loss on forward contract. 13 15. Learned counsel for the revenue has argued before this Court that such loss is a notional and contingent and has to be treated as speculative loss in terms of Section 43(5) of the Income tax Act. He has also argued before this Court that the Tribunal without examining

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 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 CANARA BANK BSCA SECTION vs. THE ASST COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE-11(2)

Bench: N.KUMAR,RATHNAKALA

disallowance under section 14A of the Act to 2% of - 7 - the gross receipts on account of dividends and interest which are exempt following earlier order of his own in the assessee’s case for the assessment year 1998-99. The said order was challenged before the Tribunal. The Tribunal confirmed the said order, in view of the fact that

PR. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX vs. SHRI. GALI JANARDHANA REDDY

Bench: K.SOMASHEKAR,UMESH M ADIGA

disallowed(Rs) (I) (II) (III) 2009-10 28,76,23,325 9,95,82,217 2010-11 2,29,05,056 1,46,91,363 15. Of these the assessing officer found that to the extent given in column (III) above, the appellant was unable to substantiate the said expenses claimed before the assessing officer. 16.In respect of assessment

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

In the result, the appeals are partly allowed

Bench: B.MANOHAR,DILIP B.BHOSALE

2), the amount of any debt or part thereof, which is established to have become a bad debt in the previous year, which is written-off.” On the basis of the provision contained in Clause (vii) of sub-Section 1 of Section 36 as it stood in 1986-87, it appears that it was necessary for the assessee to establish

HINDUSTAN AERONAUTICS LIMITED vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER

In the result, the order of the

Bench: ALOK ARADHE,H.T. NARENDRA PRASAD

37 of the Act instead of Secrtion35(1)(iv) of the Act. 12. So far as the claim of the assessee under Section 14A of the Act is concerned, sub-Section (2) and 17 (3) of Section 14A of the Act read with Rule 8D of the Rules prescribe a formula for determination of expenditure incurred in relation to income

THE PR COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX vs. M/S HINDUSTAN AERONAUTICS LTD

In the result, the order of the

Bench: ALOK ARADHE,H.T. NARENDRA PRASAD

37 of the Act instead of Secrtion35(1)(iv) of the Act. 12. So far as the claim of the assessee under Section 14A of the Act is concerned, sub-Section (2) and 17 (3) of Section 14A of the Act read with Rule 8D of the Rules prescribe a formula for determination of expenditure incurred in relation to income