THE PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER vs. M/S OBULAPURAM MINING

Bench: K.SOMASHEKAR,UMESH M ADIGA

Section 37(1) of the Income Tax Act, 1961, which reads as under: “Explanation-1 …For the removal of doubts it is hereby declared that any expenditure incurred by an assessee for any purpose which is an offense or which is prohibited by law shall not be deemed to have been incurred for the purpose of business or profession

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

239/- was not claimed as deduction under Section 40a(i) and (ia) of the Act and the same was offered to tax. Subsequent to filing of the return, the assessee received invoices from the vendors for the Assessment Year 2012-13 and the amount mentioned in the invoices was debited to the provision already made with a corresponding credit

COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-III vs. M/S. ONMOBILE GLOBAL LTD

In the result, the matter is remitted to the Tribunal to

Bench: ALOK ARADHE,R. NATARAJ

disallowance of professional charges, it is submitted that the Assessing Officer has rightly held that the payments were made in regard to acquisition of a foreign company and therefore, some are in the nature of capital expenditure. It is also pointed out that the Assessing Officer has rightly held that the expenses incurred for patent registration is also capital

PR COMMISSIONER OF vs. M/S SYNGENE

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

Bench: ALOK ARADHE,H.T. NARENDRA PRASAD

disallowed the deduction claimed by the assessee under Section 10B of the Act to the tune of Rs.21,31,59,892/- and added it to the income of the assessee. 5 4. The assessee thereupon approached the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) who by an order dated 22.06.2012 inter alia held that Assessing Officer as unable to counter the claim

M/S BEST TRADING & AGENCIES LTD vs. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX

In the result, the orders passed by the

Bench: ALOK ARADHE,H.T. NARENDRA PRASAD

239/- being income from other sources. The return of income was selected for scrutiny and a notice under Section 143(2) of the Act was issued to the assessee. 5. The Assessing Officer passed an order of assessment on 30.11.2007 under Section 143(3) of the Act and disallowed

M/S BEST TRADING & AGENCIES LTD vs. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX

In the result, the orders passed by the

Bench: ALOK ARADHE,H.T. NARENDRA PRASAD

239/- being income from other sources. The return of income was selected for scrutiny and a notice under Section 143(2) of the Act was issued to the assessee. 5. The Assessing Officer passed an order of assessment on 30.11.2007 under Section 143(3) of the Act and disallowed

THE PR. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX vs. M/S KIDS KEMP

In the result, the appeal fails and is hereby dismissed

Bench: ALOK ARADHE,HEMANT CHANDANGOUDAR

disallowed the unabsorbed assessment of depreciation of the Assessment Years 1997-98 to 2001-02. The assessee filed an appeal before the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) who by an order dated 29.02.2016 allowed the appeal on merits but did not adjudicate the issue with regard to jurisdiction raised by the assessee as the same had been rendered academic. Being

SMT M. R. PRABHAVATHY vs. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER

In the result, the appeal fails and is hereby dismissed

Bench: ARAVIND KUMAR,E.S.INDIRESH

disallowed the unabsorbed assessment of depreciation of the Assessment Years 1997-98 to 2001-02. The assessee filed an appeal before the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) who by an order dated 29.02.2016 allowed the appeal on merits but did not adjudicate the issue with regard to jurisdiction raised by the assessee as the same had been rendered academic. Being

M/S MAYA VENTURES PRIVATE LIMITED vs. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-4(1)(2),

The appeal is allowed

Bench: SATISH CHANDRA SHARMA,V SRISHANANDA

disallowing payment of Rs.65 Lakhs paid to the landlord towards the land expenses. 2.2. The facts further reveal that the appellant- Company has entered into a Joint Development Agreement dated 10.06.2004 with one Mr. D. Ramesh, the landlord for development of residential apartments measuring 2 acres and 7 guntas in Sy. No.70 of Jaraganahalli, Bangalore. The property in question

COMMISISONER OF INCOME TAX vs. OHIO UNIVERSITY CHRIST COLLEGE

Bench: S.SUJATHA,VINEET KOTHARI

disallowance of accumulation of income made by the assessing authority by holding that the decision of this Hon’ble Court in case of DIT(E) v/s. Envisions in ITA No. 752/2009 dated 13/3/2015 when the assessing authority rightly rejected the claim by holding that the assessee has not stated specific reasons for accumulation ?” 3. In our opinion, none