SMT JAMUNA VERNEKAR vs. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX

In the result, the impugned order of the tribunal dated

Bench: ALOK ARADHE,R. NATARAJ

Section 2(22)(e) of the Act. Thus, the appeal preferred by the assessee was allowed. Being aggrieved by the aforesaid order of the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), the revenue filed an appeal before the Tribunal. The Tribunal, by an order dated 31.08.2012, allowed the appeal preferred 6 the revenue. In the aforesaid factual background, the appeal has been

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

Disallowance under Section 40(a)(i): Particulars Disputed Income Disputed tax [i.e., tax @ 33.99% on disputed income] Payable under DTVSV Act @ 50% of tax As per Petitioner 37,28,12,027 12,67,18,808 6,33,59,404 As per Revenue 66,66,00,074 22

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

Disallowance under Section 40(a)(i): Particulars Disputed Income Disputed tax [i.e., tax @ 33.99% on disputed income] Payable under DTVSV Act @ 50% of tax As per Petitioner 37,28,12,027 12,67,18,808 6,33,59,404 As per Revenue 66,66,00,074 22

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

disallowance under Section 40(a)(ia) of the Act, so the finding of the PCIT that the Assessing Officer has not examined the issue in accordance with law and has not conducted necessary enquiries is incorrect. It was also the case of the respondent that as the Assessing Officer has taken a plausible view, the assessment order cannot be subjected

ANTONY PARAKAL KURIAN vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX

Appeal is allowed in part

Bench: S.SUJATHA,S RACHAIAH

disallowed. As regards the claim made under Section 54F of the Act, the same came to be rejected. M.P.No.163/Bang/2020 was preferred by the assessee, the same came to be allowed in part directing Commissioner of Income Tax [Appeals] to decide 9 regarding eligibility of Rs.90 lakhs also under Section 54 of the Act, rejecting the other contentions raised

COFFEEDAY GLOBAL LTD. vs. ADDITIONAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX

In the result, the orders dated 21

Bench: ALOK ARADHE,ASHOK S.KINAGI

disallowance on the ground that in terms of proviso to Section 36(1)(iii) which was incorporated in the At with effect form 01.04.2004 the interest cost ought to have been capitalized. 21 12. It is pertinent to mention here that prior to amendment of Section 36(1)(iii) vide Finance Act, 2003, it is a well settled proposition

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

disallowance on the ground that in terms of proviso to Section 36(1)(iii) which was incorporated in the At with effect form 01.04.2004 the interest cost ought to have been capitalized. 21 12. It is pertinent to mention here that prior to amendment of Section 36(1)(iii) vide Finance Act, 2003, it is a well settled proposition

COFFEEDAY GLOBAL LTD. vs. ADDITIONAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX

In the result, the orders dated 21

Bench: ALOK ARADHE,ASHOK S.KINAGI

disallowance on the ground that in terms of proviso to Section 36(1)(iii) which was incorporated in the At with effect form 01.04.2004 the interest cost ought to have been capitalized. 21 12. It is pertinent to mention here that prior to amendment of Section 36(1)(iii) vide Finance Act, 2003, it is a well settled proposition

KARNATAKA STATE BEVERAGES CORPORTION LIMITED vs. THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX

Bench: The Hon’Ble Mr. Justice Anand Byrareddy Writ Petition No.12872 Of 2013 (T-It) Connected With Writ Petition No.14687 Of 2014 (T-It), Writ Petition No.15910 Of 2015 (T-It) & Writ Petition No.17514 Of 2015 (T-It) In W.P.No.12872 Of 2013 Between: Karnataka State Beverages Corporation Limited, Represented By It’S Executive Director (Finance), Sri. Shrikant B Vanahalli, Aged About 57 Years, No.78, Seethalakshmi Towers, Mission Road, Bangalore 560 027. …Petitioner

disallowed invoking provisions of Section 40(a)(ii). One other aspect which the Assessing Officer has sought to hold against the petitioner is as to the State Government being a shareholder of the company and therefore, was receiving privilege fee far in excess of what the shareholder would be entitled to, is also an observation which is irrelevant

M/S DELHI INTERNATIONAL vs. THE PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER

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 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

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

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

HINDUSTAN AERONAUTICS LIMITED vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER

In the result, the order of the

Bench: ALOK ARADHE,H.T. NARENDRA PRASAD

22-04-2016 AND CONFIRM THE ORDER OF THE APPELLATE COMMISSIONER CONFIRMING THE ORDER PASSED BY THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-3(1)(1), BENGALURU. (III) TO PASS SUCH OTHER SUITABLE ORDERS AS THIS HON'BLE COURT DEEMS FIT TO PASS ON THE FACTS AND IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE AND IN THE INTERESTS OF JUSTICE

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

22-04-2016 AND CONFIRM THE ORDER OF THE APPELLATE COMMISSIONER CONFIRMING THE ORDER PASSED BY THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-3(1)(1), BENGALURU. (III) TO PASS SUCH OTHER SUITABLE ORDERS AS THIS HON'BLE COURT DEEMS FIT TO PASS ON THE FACTS AND IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE AND IN THE INTERESTS OF JUSTICE