COFFEEDAY GLOBAL LTD. vs. ADDITIONAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX

In the result, the orders dated 21

Bench: ALOK ARADHE,ASHOK S.KINAGI

disallowance of interest under Section 14A was warranted as regards the very same investments and the facts remained the same in the Assessment Year in question? (v) Whether the tribunal has acted in contravention of the provision of Section 7 254

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 interest under Section 14A was warranted as regards the very same investments and the facts remained the same in the Assessment Year in question? (v) Whether the tribunal has acted in contravention of the provision of Section 7 254

PR. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-2 vs. M/S.J.J.GLASTRONICS PVT LTD

The appeal stands dismissed

Bench: S.SUJATHA,J.M.KHAZI

disallowance under Section 14A has to be adopted while arriving at book profit. Learned counsel further submitted that the Miscellaneous - 6 - Petition filed under Section 254

THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX vs. M/S. ASTRA ZENECA PHARMA

In the result, the order passed by the

Bench: ALOK ARADHE,HEMANT CHANDANGOUDAR

disallowed 100% depreciation on pollution control equipments amounting to Rs.4,93,00,000/-. The assessing officer also taxed the notional income on the amount of loan advanced to Madhya Pradesh State Electricity Board. The said order was subject matter of challenge before the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals). The Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) by an order dated 30.08.2010 held

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

disallowance under Section 14-A 10 of the Act in a sum of Rs.60,30,758/-, by order dated 12.03.2015. For the Assessment year 2009-10, an order under Section 143(3) read with Section 147 and 254

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

disallow such claim made by the assessee though duly certified by the prescribed authority by taking recourse to the later portion of sub-clause (ii) of sub-section (4) of Section 43 of the Act. He would summarise his 9 submissions by contending the definition of ‘scientific research’ found in Section 43(4) has been imported to Section

THE PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CIT(A) vs. SHRI.S.S. BAKKESH

In the result, both the appeals filed by the Revenue are

Bench: D K SINGH,VENKATESH NAIK T

disallowed the claim for deduction under Section 80JJA of the Act in respect of bio-fuel pellets. Hence, it is just and necessary to analyse the meaning of bio-fuel pellets. 15. Bio-fuel pellets are dense, uniformally sized, cylindrical fuel pellets made from compressed organic materials like wood waste, agricultural residue and other bio-mass. These small, hard pellets

M/S KOTAK MAHINDRA BANK LIMITED vs. THE ADDITIONAL COMMISSIONER OF

In the result, appeal is disposed of

Bench: ALOK ARADHE,HEMANT CHANDANGOUDAR

Section 254 of the Act is well settled. An assessee can be permitted to raise the question before the tribunal for the first time so long as the relevant facts are on record. In the instant case, the ESOP expenditure of Rs.1,77,61,870/- was already debited to the profit and loss account of the assessee and the same

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

SMT M R PRABHAVATHY vs. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF

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

Bench: ARAVIND KUMAR,E.S.INDIRESH

disallowance of set off of unabsorbed depreciation by following the judgment of Gujarat High Court in the case of GENERAL MOTORS PRIVATE LIMITED., even though the amendments madder to Section 32(2) of the Act which removed the gap of 8 years in allowing set off of unabsorbed depreciation is prospective and effective only from 1-4-2002?" 2. Admittedly

THE PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER vs. M/S OBULAPURAM MINING

Bench: K.SOMASHEKAR,UMESH M ADIGA

254, while there is no similar provision under Section 260A, so that it was inferred that the reference to the order of the Tribunal could only refer to the order passed in normal course and not to rectification order. Further, a reliance is also made in the case of CIT Vs. Durga Engineering and Foundry Works reported

SHRI NARAYAN RAO HEBRI vs. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX

The appeal stands dismissed

Bench: S.G.PANDIT,K. V. ARAVIND

254 (Guj)] and CIT v. Cellulose Products of India Ltd. [(1985) 151 ITR 499 (Guj)] ]. Undoubtedly, the Tribunal will have the discretion to allow or not allow a new ground to be raised. But where the Tribunal is only required to consider the question of law arising from facts which are on record in the assessment proceedings we fail

M/S A Y GARMENTS INTERNATIONAL PRIVATE LTD vs. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX

In the result, the appeal is allowed

Bench: ALOK ARADHE,M.NAGAPRASANNA

254(2) of the Act, the order dated 4.4.2012 passed by the Tribunal 4 allowing the appeal preferred by the revenue on the facts and circumstance of the case? (vi) Whether the authorities below justified in law in levying interest under Section 234B and 234C of the Act on the facts and circumstances of the case? 2. Facts leading

NOVO NORDISK INDIA PRIVATE 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

disallowances and tax liability was determined at Rs.109,22,23,790/- which was inclusive of interest. 3 An appeal came to be presented by the petitioner being aggrieved by the assessment order. Petitioner is said to have deposited Rs.15 Crores on 28.2.2014 before the respondent – authority with a prayer not to recover the balance disputed demand till disposal

M/S CANARA BANK BSCA SECTION vs. THE ASST COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE-11(2)

Bench: N.KUMAR,RATHNAKALA

254/- [including 244A interest], was issued. Thereafter, the case was selected for scrutiny under section 143[3] of the Income Tax Act, 1961 [for short hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’]. Notices were issued under sections 143[2] and 143[1] on 26.11.2001 which was received by the assessee on the same day. The assessee had claimed disallowance

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

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 15. Of these the assessing officer found that to the extent given in column (III) above, the appellant was unable to substantiate the said expenses claimed before the assessing officer. 16.In respect of assessment

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

ZAMEER MIRJA vs. THE JOINT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX

Bench: B.MANOHAR,K.SREEDHAR RAO

disallowed. CIT appeals confirmed the order of the Assessing Officer, so also the Appellant 4 Tribunal confirmed the rejection of exemption granted in respect of Rs.20,00,000/-. However, under Section 54F granted partial relief to an extent of Rs.6,67,493/-. 3. The assessee made an application Misc. Petition No.48/Bang/06 (in ITA No.221/Bang/04) under Section 254