THE PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER vs. M/S OBULAPURAM MINING

Bench: K.SOMASHEKAR,UMESH M ADIGA

23,641/- Total adjustments Rs.112,20,92,081/- 7. It is further stated that the draft assessment order came to be passed under section 144C read with Section 143(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 by adopting the above adjustments to the value of the international transactions and the income of the assessee came to be upwardly revised

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 :23

M/S J K CEMENT WORKS vs. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA

Bench: H.B.PRABHAKARA SASTRY,VINEET KOTHARI

2) as well as Section 12 of the KVAT Act, providing for deduction of input tax credit in respect of the capital goods, both would support the case of the present assessee. We do not find any force in the contention of the learned Additional Government Advocate or the premise taken by the authorities below, that merely because item Cement

THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX vs. PRAVEEN V DODDANAVAR

Bench: SREENIVAS HARISH KUMAR,VINEET KOTHARI

2) as well as Section 12 of the KVAT Act, providing for deduction of input tax credit in respect of the capital goods, both would support the case of the present assessee. We do not find any force in the contention of the learned Additional Government Advocate or the premise taken by the authorities below, that merely because item Cement

THE BAILHONGAL URBAN COOPERATIVE BANK LTD vs. THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX

Bench: S.ABDUL NAZEER,P.S.DINESH KUMAR

2) as well as Section 12 of the KVAT Act, providing for deduction of input tax credit in respect of the capital goods, both would support the case of the present assessee. We do not find any force in the contention of the learned Additional Government Advocate or the premise taken by the authorities below, that merely because item Cement

COFFEEDAY GLOBAL LTD. vs. ADDITIONAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX

In the result, the orders dated 21

Bench: ALOK ARADHE,ASHOK S.KINAGI

disallowance of processing charges and capitalization of Rs.9,77,23,650/-. The tribunal has therefore decided the claim of the assessee on merits. Since, the omission on the part of the tribunal was an error apparent on the face of the record, and therefore, the tribunal rightly invoked provisions of Section 254(2

COFFEEDAY GLOBAL LTD. vs. ADDITIONAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX

In the result, the orders dated 21

Bench: ALOK ARADHE,ASHOK S.KINAGI

disallowance of processing charges and capitalization of Rs.9,77,23,650/-. The tribunal has therefore decided the claim of the assessee on merits. Since, the omission on the part of the tribunal was an error apparent on the face of the record, and therefore, the tribunal rightly invoked provisions of Section 254(2

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 of processing charges and capitalization of Rs.9,77,23,650/-. The tribunal has therefore decided the claim of the assessee on merits. Since, the omission on the part of the tribunal was an error apparent on the face of the record, and therefore, the tribunal rightly invoked provisions of Section 254(2

SRI N GOVINDARAJU vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER

Appeal stands disposed of

Bench: S.SUJATHA,VINEET SARAN

23 had escaped assessment, has as a matter of fact not escaped assessment, it is not open to him independently to assess some other income. If he intends to do so, a fresh notice under section 148 would be necessary, the legality of which would be tested in the event of a challenge by the assessee.” Thus, what has been

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 NANDI STEELS LIMITED vs. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX

In the result, the findings

Bench: ALOK ARADHE,R. NATARAJ

disallowed the claim of set off of brought forward loss. It is also pointed out that proviso to Section 72(i) was omitted by Finance act, 1999 with effect from 01.04.2000 and for the impugned assessment year 2003-04, the assessee was not required to carry on the business for the purpose of set off of brought forward business loss

THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX vs. M/S QUEST GLOBAL ENGINEERING SERVICES PVT. LTD.,

In the result, we don to find any

Bench: ALOK ARADHE,R. NATARAJ

disallowance under Section 14A of the Act, the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) upheld the order of the Assessing Officer. In the result, the appeal preferred by the assessee was partly allowed. The assessee as well as the revenue filed appeals before the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal against the order of Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals). The Tribunal

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

The appeals stand disposed of, accordingly

Bench: N.KUMAR,B.SREENIVASE GOWDA

2) was issued on 14.02.2005. A questionnaire was issued on 27.04.2006 calling for certain details and the compliance was fixed on various dates beginning from 19.05.2006. The assessee- company filed written replies along with enclosures. Assessment u/s 143(3) was completed and orders dated 29.12.2006 for assessment year 2004-05 was passed after - 23 - making certain allowances/ disallowances, re-computation

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

The appeals stand disposed of, accordingly

Bench: N.KUMAR,B.SREENIVASE GOWDA

2) was issued on 14.02.2005. A questionnaire was issued on 27.04.2006 calling for certain details and the compliance was fixed on various dates beginning from 19.05.2006. The assessee- company filed written replies along with enclosures. Assessment u/s 143(3) was completed and orders dated 29.12.2006 for assessment year 2004-05 was passed after - 23 - making certain allowances/ disallowances, re-computation

PR. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX vs. SMT. G. LAKSHMI ARUNA

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 Of these, the Assessing Officer found that to the extent given in column 3 above, the appellant was unable to substantiate the said expense claimed before the Assessing Officer. 16. In respect of assessment

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), the disputed tax which 15 is subject matter of departmental appeal before the High Court is as under:- AYs Tax Arrears Disputed tax [i.e., tax @ 33.99% on disputed income] Payable under VsVs

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), the disputed tax which 15 is subject matter of departmental appeal before the High Court is as under:- AYs Tax Arrears Disputed tax [i.e., tax @ 33.99% on disputed income] Payable under VsVs

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

23,231/- came to be disallowed. 24. Thus, an amount of ` 48,41,82,071/- out of deduction of ` 89,35,48,193/- claimed under Section 38 35(2AB) was disallowed and added to the income of the assessee. It has been held by the second respondent that the mandate of the prescribed authority is limited to certifying to what