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

The appeals stand disposed of, accordingly

Bench: N.KUMAR,B.SREENIVASE GOWDA

Section 154. Notice u/s 142(1) was issued on 21.12.2001 with a questionnaire. Further notices u/s 142 (1) were issued on various dates beginning from 7.10.2003 to 8.3.2004. The assessee- company filed written replies along with enclosures from time to time. The return furnished on 30.10.2001 was processed u/s 143(3) of the I.T.Act on 24.03.2004 and order was passed

THE PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER vs. M/S OBULAPURAM MINING

Bench: K.SOMASHEKAR,UMESH M ADIGA

Disallowance of Expenses under Explanation to section 37(1) and in respect of third issue i.e., addition made on account of sale of Land, the ITAT set-aside the order of CIT (A) on that issue and restored the matter to A.O. for a fresh decision with the same directions as were given by the tribunal

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

Bench: K.SOMASHEKAR,UMESH M ADIGA

24,729 Less: TDS 28,20,543 Balance Tax 14,76,04,186 Less: Advance Tax 7,50,00,000 Balance Tax 7,26,04,186 Add: Interest u/s234A – 1,30,68,753 235B – 1,59,97,806 2,90,66,559 13 Total Tax 10,16,70,745 Less: 140A paid 2,00,00,000 Net Amount Payable

PR. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX vs. SHRI. GALI JANARDHANA REDDY

Bench: K.SOMASHEKAR,UMESH M ADIGA

24,729 Less: TDS 28,20,543 Balance Tax 14,76,04,186 Less: Advance Tax 7,50,00,000 Balance Tax 7,26,04,186 Add: Interest u/s234A – 1,30,68,753 12 235B – 1,59,97,806 2,90,66,559 Total Tax 10,16,70,745 Less: 140A paid 2,00,00,000 Net Amount Payable

COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-III vs. M/S SYNDICATE BANK

The appeals are disposed of

Bench: ALOK ARADHE,RAVI V HOSMANI

disallowing an amount of Rs.192,53,21,426/- on reversal of interest pertaining to earlier years as deduction out of current years income and added back to interest on zero coupon bonds to the tune of RS.1,03,53,095/- along with other additions/disallowance in computation of regular income/book profit. It was held that as per section 36(1)(viia

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

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

THE PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX vs. M/S NIRANI SUGARS LTD.,

In the result, the impugned orders passed by

Bench: ALOK ARADHE,P.G.M.PATIL

1. THE PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, DR.B.R.AMBEDKAR ROAD, BELAGAVI. 2. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2, BELGAUM. ………..APPELLANTS (BY SRI.Y.V.RAVIRAJ, ADVOCATE) AND : M/S.NIRANI SUGARS LTD., 166, KULALI CROSS, JAMAKHANDI ROAD, MUDHOL, DISTRICT BAGALKOT-587 313, PAN : AABCN2166J. …..RESPONDENT (BY SRI.ASHOK A.KULKARNI AND SHRI.H.R.KAMBIYAVAR, ADVOCATES FOR RESPONDENT) THIS I.T.A. IS FILED UNDER SECTION 260A OF THE INCOME

THE PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX vs. M/S NIRANI SUGARS LTD.,

In the result, the impugned orders passed by

Bench: ALOK ARADHE,P.G.M.PATIL

1. THE PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, DR.B.R.AMBEDKAR ROAD, BELAGAVI. 2. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2, BELGAUM. ………..APPELLANTS (BY SRI.Y.V.RAVIRAJ, ADVOCATE) AND : M/S.NIRANI SUGARS LTD., 166, KULALI CROSS, JAMAKHANDI ROAD, MUDHOL, DISTRICT BAGALKOT-587 313, PAN : AABCN2166J. …..RESPONDENT (BY SRI.ASHOK A.KULKARNI AND SHRI.H.R.KAMBIYAVAR, ADVOCATES FOR RESPONDENT) THIS I.T.A. IS FILED UNDER SECTION 260A OF THE 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

24. Learned counsel for the Revenue, however, contended that the Appellate Authorities were not right in holding that a sum of Rs.1.91 crore cannot be disallowed as a deduction. He submitted that the said amount was not reflected in the balance sheet and no particulars had been furnished by the assessee in that regard. Learned counsel contended that the Appellate

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

24. Learned counsel for the Revenue, however, contended that the Appellate Authorities were not right in holding that a sum of Rs.1.91 crore cannot be disallowed as a deduction. He submitted that the said amount was not reflected in the balance sheet and no particulars had been furnished by the assessee in that regard. Learned counsel contended that the Appellate

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

24. Learned counsel for the Revenue, however, contended that the Appellate Authorities were not right in holding that a sum of Rs.1.91 crore cannot be disallowed as a deduction. He submitted that the said amount was not reflected in the balance sheet and no particulars had been furnished by the assessee in that regard. Learned counsel contended that the Appellate

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

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 extent, any activity constitutes or constituted

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)

24 of Section 2 whereas Sub-section 43 relates to taxes wherein fringe benefits has been included. Therefore, total income is required to be taken under Section 4 which is the charging section. 8. Learned counsel for the respondent vehemently contended that where a validity of an Act is under challenge, scope of interference by the Court is limited

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

In the result, the appeals are partly allowed

Bench: B.MANOHAR,DILIP B.BHOSALE

1) of the Act. The Supreme Court, in this case, while considering the question whether the expenditure of `3,19,766 incurred by the assessee in dismantling and shifting the factory from Sitalpur and erecting the factory and fitting the machinery at Garaul was expenditure of a capital nature and not revenue expenditure within the meaning of Section

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

M/S J K INDUSTRIES LTD vs. THE JOINT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX

In the result, all questions are answered against the

Bench: D.V.SHYLENDRA KUMAR,B.SREENIVASE GOWDA

disallowed as notional and not real, for the purpose of computation under Section 80HHC of the Act, the tribunal not having taken a contrary view, it is to be deemed as rejected. 17. Be that as it may, what we find is that in respect of the first item of incentive viz., premium sale exim scrips amount as claimed