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

Bench: S.SUJATHA,S VISHWAJITH SHETTY

disallowance under Section 40(a)(ia) of the Act. - 18 - 15. The arguments advanced by the learned counsel for the appellant that this order of the Tribunal suffers from infirmity, for the reason, that the net proceeds of PSF-(SC) was held by it in fiduciary capacity and collected the same on behalf of Government of India which

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

Bench: S.SUJATHA,S VISHWAJITH SHETTY

disallowance under Section 40(a)(ia) of the Act. - 18 - 15. The arguments advanced by the learned counsel for the appellant that this order of the Tribunal suffers from infirmity, for the reason, that the net proceeds of PSF-(SC) was held by it in fiduciary capacity and collected the same on behalf of Government of India which

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

Bench: S.SUJATHA,S VISHWAJITH SHETTY

disallowance under Section 40(a)(ia) of the Act. - 18 - 15. The arguments advanced by the learned counsel for the appellant that this order of the Tribunal suffers from infirmity, for the reason, that the net proceeds of PSF-(SC) was held by it in fiduciary capacity and collected the same on behalf of Government of India which

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

Bench: S.SUJATHA,S VISHWAJITH SHETTY

disallowance under Section 40(a)(ia) of the Act. - 18 - 15. The arguments advanced by the learned counsel for the appellant that this order of the Tribunal suffers from infirmity, for the reason, that the net proceeds of PSF-(SC) was held by it in fiduciary capacity and collected the same on behalf of Government of India which

M/S SWAN SILK PRIVATE LIMITED vs. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX

In the result, we do not find any merit in the

Bench: ALOK ARADHE,HEMANT CHANDANGOUDAR

200/-. (c) Disallowance of 50% of foreign travel expenses - Rs.37.18,705/-. (d) Disallowance under Section 40(a)(iia) of the Act- Rs.96

M/S. EVERGREEN HARDWARE STORES vs. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF

Appeal is allowed

Bench: P.S.DINESH KUMAR,UMESH M ADIGA

disallowance of Rs.53,367/- under Section 14A read with Rule 8D of the Rules is not sustainable. I.T.A No.201/2017 8 8. Re:Addition under Section 45(4) in respect of: (a) land at Adugodi Rs.54,89,677/- (b) Building Rs.68,86,826; Shri. Shankar submitted that a plot was purchased by one of the partners Shri. Mannon M. Aeranpurwala

COMMISSIONER OF INCOME vs. SRI SCORPIO ENGINEERING

Bench: B.V.NAGARATHNA,JAYANT PATEL

disallowance of entire expenditure under Section 40[a](ia). The said proviso thereby caused immense hardship. The amendment under consideration made by the Finance Act 2010 relaxes the rigors of such prevision by permitting payment of Tax till the filing of return as provided under sub-section (1) of Section 139 of the Act. 16.2:One can notice that

THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX vs. M/S LUWA INDIA PVT LTD

Bench: RAVI MALIMATH,N.KUMAR

disallowance of entire expenditure under Section 40[a](ia). The said proviso thereby caused immense hardship. The amendment under consideration made by the Finance Act 2010 relaxes the rigors of such provision by permitting payment of Tax till the filing of return as provided under sub-section (1) of Section 139 of the Act. 16.2: One can notice that

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)

disallowed under section 37 of the Act is outside the purview of fringe benefit tax as explained by CBDT Circular dated 29/8/2005 in response to Question No.35. Hence the contention of the assessee that levy of fringe benefit tax is double taxation is incorrect. 6. It is submitted that the petitioner has contended that the benefits/expenses can be taxed

THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX vs. M/S MARUTI SUBRAY PATIL

The appeal stands disposed of in the above terms

Bench: The Hon’Ble Mr.Justice Ravi Malimath & The Hon’Ble Mr.Justice G. Narendar

200:” 19. A perfunctory reading of the provisions of Section 194C of the Act obviates the necessity for any interpretational exercise as the provisions are unambiguous. A reading of the provisions of Section 194C mandates that any person who is involved in executing any contract or carrying out any work under a contract between any individual and company

THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX vs. M/S. GOKALDAS IMAGES PVT.LTD

In the result, the appeal is disposed of

Bench: ALOK ARADHE,H.T. NARENDRA PRASAD

disallowance made under section 14A should not be added to the Book Profits of the assessee under 4 section 115JB despite the explicit provisions of Clause (i) of Explanation (1) to section 115JB? (iv) Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was right in law in deletion of portion of common expenses allocated even

M/S NAM ESTATES PVT. LTD. vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER

In the result, we do not find any merit in this

Bench: ALOK ARADHE,H.T. NARENDRA PRASAD

disallowance of business expenditure. In the aforesaid factual background, the instant appeal has been filed. 4. Learned counsel for the assessee submitted that the purpose and intent of Section 40A(3) is to curb tax evasion by establishing the identity of the parties and the genuineness of the transaction. It is further submitted that the Tribunal has erroneously invoked

M/S TOYOTA KIRLOSKAR MOTOR P LTD vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER

In the result, the appeal is allowed

Bench: ALOK ARADHE,M.G.S. KAMAL

disallowances made under Section 40a(i) and (ia) of the Act. The assessee thereupon furnished the information vide communication dated 12.08.2013. 4. The Assessing Officer initiated the proceeding under Section 201 and 201(1A) of the Act and treated the assessee as assessee in default in respect of the 6 amount made in provision, which was reversed / un- utilized

ABB INDIA LTD vs. JOINT COMMISSIONER OF

Bench: P.S.DINESH KUMAR,M G UMA

Section 147 of the Act dated 19.12.2013 on the ground that deduction was allowed inadvertently is not sustainable. 12. In substance, Shri Suryanarayana's argument is, the AO had accepted the explanation and passed the assessment order. Therefore, the deductions allowed previously could not be disallowed subsequently on the ground that the same were inadvertently allowed. In support

THE COMMISSIONER OF vs. M/S ABB INDIA LTD

Bench: P.S.DINESH KUMAR,M G UMA

Section 147 of the Act dated 19.12.2013 on the ground that deduction was allowed inadvertently is not sustainable. 12. In substance, Shri Suryanarayana's argument is, the AO had accepted the explanation and passed the assessment order. Therefore, the deductions allowed previously could not be disallowed subsequently on the ground that the same were inadvertently allowed. In support

THE PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER vs. M/S OBULAPURAM MINING

Bench: K.SOMASHEKAR,UMESH M ADIGA

Disallowance is not maintainable on law and facts and evidence and requires to be deleted. The grounds of appeal, the addition of entire sale consideration and taxing the same amounts to levy of turnover tax for which the assessing officer has no jurisdiction. It is also learnt that appellant has been accounting the receipts on this account regularly

SMT SAIRA BANU vs. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX

Bench: ARAVIND KUMAR,VINEET SARAN

disallowed 20% of 6 sale consideration by invoking Section 40A(3) of the Act. In support of his contention, learned counsel for the appellant has relied on the following decisions: i. Tolaram Daga –vs- Commissioner of Income Tax, Assam ([1965 ] 57 ITR (Sh.N.) 9) / [1966] Vol.LIX ITR 632 ii. Attar Singh Gurmukh Singh –vs- Income Tax Officer, Ludhiana

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

Bench: B.MANOHAR,VINEET SARAN

disallowance of lease rentals paid by it to the extent of Rs.2,08,080/-. The Tribunal, however dismissed the appeal of the Revenue, and partly allowed the appeal of the respondent-assessee by allowing the benefit of set-off of brought forward losses, but did not give the benefit of lease rentals paid by the assessee. Challenging the said order