COFFEEDAY GLOBAL LTD. vs. ADDITIONAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX

In the result, the orders dated 21

Bench: ALOK ARADHE,ASHOK S.KINAGI

211 & 212/BANG/2017 IN ITA NOS.1501 & 1586/BANG/2013 FOR ASSESSMENT YEAR 2010-11, AS SOUGHT FOR IN THIS APPEAL AND TO GRANT SUCH OTHER RELIEF AS DEEMED FIT, IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE. I.T.A. NO.313 OF 2018 BETWEEN: COFFEEDAY GLOBAL LTD. (FORMERLY KNOWN AS AMALGAMATED BEAN COFFEE TRADING CO LTD) NO.23/2, VITTAL MALLYA ROAD BENGALURU - 560001 REP. HEREIN BY ITS COMPANY SECRETARY

THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX vs. M/S JINDAL ALUMINIUM LIMITED

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

Bench: ALOK ARADHE,H.T. NARENDRA PRASAD

disallowance of expenditure under Section 14A as the assessee was already having it sown surplus fund and the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) as well as the Tribunal have allowed the claim under Section 14A of the Act to the extent of Rs.26,61,011/- only after being satisfied that the aforesaid amount was 9 invested from the assessee

TATA COFFEE LIMITED vs. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX

In the result, the same fails and is hereby

Bench: ALOK ARADHE,H.T. NARENDRA PRASAD

Section 145(3) of the Act. In support of aforesaid submission, learned counsel for the assessee has placed reliance on decision of the Supreme Court in 5 ‘COMMISISONER OF INCOME-TAX VS. WALCHAND AND CO. P. LTD.’, (1967) 65 ITR 381 (SC) as well as decision of this court in ‘INGERSOLL RAND (INDIA) LTD. VS. THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME

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

disallowed as it was not meant for management of construction, but on other expenses, such as advertisement, sales promotion etc. Therefore, the income had to be assessed under the head income from other sources. The Tribunal held that the income had to be assessed as business income and the assessee could not have received a sum of Rs.78.25 lakh without

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

disallowed as it was not meant for management of construction, but on other expenses, such as advertisement, sales promotion etc. Therefore, the income had to be assessed under the head income from other sources. The Tribunal held that the income had to be assessed as business income and the assessee could not have received a sum of Rs.78.25 lakh without

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

disallowed as it was not meant for management of construction, but on other expenses, such as advertisement, sales promotion etc. Therefore, the income had to be assessed under the head income from other sources. The Tribunal held that the income had to be assessed as business income and the assessee could not have received a sum of Rs.78.25 lakh without

COMMISSONER OF INCOME TAX vs. M/S SHAW WALLACE

In the result, the appeal fails and is hereby

Bench: ALOK ARADHE,H.T. NARENDRA PRASAD

disallowance under Section 14A of the Act. The assessee thereupon filed an appeal before the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), who by an order dated 03.07.2006 partly allowed the appeal preferred by the assessee. The assessee as well as the revenue approached the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal by filing appeals. The Tribunal, 5 by an order dated 17.05.2013 partly allowed

THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, vs. M/S BAHUBALI NEMINATH MUTTIN,

The appeals are dismissed

Bench: ANAND BYRAREDDY,RAGHVENDRA S.CHAUHAN

Disallowance under Section 40A (3) of the I.T. Act being undisclosed income Rs.24,216/- (v) Gross profit on suppressed sales being undisclosed income at Rs.19,45,509/- (vi) Addition on account of cessation of liability under Section 41 (1) of the I.T. Act at Rs.2,37,818/-. 3. The assessee had filed an appeal before the Commissioner of Income

SRI MUKESH GUPTA vs. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF

The appeal is dismissed

Bench: D K SINGH,RAJESH RAI K

disallowed both the claims. 4. Aggrieved by the same, the assessee preferred appeal before the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) (for brevity, "the CIT(A)". The CIT(A) concurring with the view of the Assessing Officer, rejected the appeals insofar as these two grounds are concerned. 4 5. On further appeal, the Appellate Tribunal recorded a finding that the amount

THE PR. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX vs. M/S EDS ELECTRONICS DATA SYSTEMS INDIA PVT.LTD.

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

Bench: ALOK ARADHE,R. NATARAJ

disallowances with regard to addition on account of income from other sources, addition on account of foreign exchange loss and addition on account of Arms 6 Length Price (ALP). 5. The assessee thereupon filed an appeal before the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) who by an order dated 21.01.2009 inter alia held that respondent has earned a profit in technical

PR COMMISSIONER OF vs. M/S SUBEX LTD

In the result, appeal stands dismissed

Bench: S.SUJATHA,RAVI V HOSMANI

disallowed the deduction/debit. This fact is - 8 - important. It indicates the double standards adopted by the Department.” 10. Analyzing Section 43A [Un-amended] held that “what triggers the adjustment in the actual cost of the assets, in terms of un-amended Section 43A is the change in the rate of exchange subsequent to the acquisition of asset in foreign currency

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