M/S FIDELITY BUSINESS SERVICES INDIA PVT LTD vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX

Bench: S.SUJATHA,VINEET KOTHARI

disallowed the depreciation and the High Court affirmed the decision of the Tribunal. On appeal to the Supreme Court: Held, that under Section 254 (1

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 36(1)(iii) of the Act. Similarly twin issues arise for consideration in this appeal viz., whether loan processing and other charges can be allowed as revenue expenditure or has to be treated as capital in nature and whether the tribunal has acted in contravention of the provision of Section 254

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 36(1)(iii) of the Act. Similarly twin issues arise for consideration in this appeal viz., whether loan processing and other charges can be allowed as revenue expenditure or has to be treated as capital in nature and whether the tribunal has acted in contravention of the provision of Section 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 36(1)(iii) of the Act. Similarly twin issues arise for consideration in this appeal viz., whether loan processing and other charges can be allowed as revenue expenditure or has to be treated as capital in nature and whether the tribunal has acted in contravention of the provision of Section 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

254[2] are fully satisfied in present case? 2. Whether on the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Tribunal is right in law holding that Section 14A disallowance cannot be made while computing book profit under Section 115JB of the Act ignoring Explanation 1

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

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

M/S NANDI STEELS LIMITED vs. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX

In the result, the findings

Bench: ALOK ARADHE,R. NATARAJ

1)(i) and (ii) of the Act. It is also argued that Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) as well as the 9 tribunal has confirmed the disallowance or reasons other than the reasons for which the Assessing Officer disallowed the claim of set off of brought forward loss. It is also pointed out that proviso to Section

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

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

In the result, the order passed by the

Bench: ALOK ARADHE,HEMANT CHANDANGOUDAR

1) to the assessee. The assessing officer by an order dated 26.03.1999 passed an order of assessment and inter alia quantified the total taxable income at Rs.8,38,38,080/-. 100% Depreciation claimed by the assessee on pollution control equipment worth Rs.4,93,00,000/- was 6 disallowed and 80% interest on the amount advanced to Madhya Pradesh State Electricity

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

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

254 of the Act was passed as on 19.03.2015, disallowing the privilege fee of Rs.479,36,60,000/- and made disallowance under Section 14-A of the Act in a sum of Rs.41,28,225/- and provision for ex- gratia Rs.18,90,000/-. The total disallowance of privilege fee is as follows: Writ Petition Number Assessment Year Privilege Fee 12872/2013

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

1) of the Act. The scrutiny assessment was completed by the Assessing Officer under Section 143(3) of the Act, at a total assessed income of Rs.15,40,92,700/- for the Assessment Year 2007-08 in ITA No.37/2020 and Rs.17,98,98,400/- for the Assessment Year 2008-09 in ITA No.72/2020. While doing so, the Assessing Officer disallowed

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

1) of the Act and thereafter the case was selected for scrutiny and notice under Section 143(2) of the Act was issued on 17.10.2006. The assessing officer by an order passed under Section 143(3) of the Act disallowed a sum of Rs.55,17,037/- being expenditure incurred, by invoking provisions of Section

M/S BIG BAGS INTERNATIONAL (P) LTD vs. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX

In the result, the order of the tribunal to the

Bench: ALOK ARADHE,H.T. NARENDRA PRASAD

254(2) of the Act, without properly appreciating and understanding the facts of the case of the appellant under the facts and circumstances of the case? 2. Facts leading to filing of this appeal briefly stated are that assessee is a private limited company and is engaged in the business of manufacture of PP- FIBC Bags. By a scheme

THE PR. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (4) vs. M/S CHAMUNDI WINERY AND DISTILLERY

Bench: S.SUJATHA,VINEET KOTHARI

1 CIT Vs. Shoorji Vallabhdas & Co. 46 ITR 144 (SC) 01-03 2 Godhra Electricity Co. Ltd Vs. CIT 225 ITR 746 (SC) 04-11 13 CIT Vs. Chemosyn Ltd 371 ITR 427 (Bom) 75-79 14 Poorna Electric Supply Co. Ltd Vs. CIT [1965] 56 ITR 521 (SC) 80-85 17 CIT Vs. Chamanlal Mangaldas

PR. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX vs. M/S CHAMUNDI WINERY AND DISTILLERY

Bench: S.SUJATHA,VINEET KOTHARI

1 CIT Vs. Shoorji Vallabhdas & Co. 46 ITR 144 (SC) 01-03 2 Godhra Electricity Co. Ltd Vs. CIT 225 ITR 746 (SC) 04-11 13 CIT Vs. Chemosyn Ltd 371 ITR 427 (Bom) 75-79 14 Poorna Electric Supply Co. Ltd Vs. CIT [1965] 56 ITR 521 (SC) 80-85 17 CIT Vs. Chamanlal Mangaldas

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