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(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 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(2

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

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

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

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

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

In the result, the order passed by the

Bench: ALOK ARADHE,HEMANT CHANDANGOUDAR

2) and 143(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

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

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

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

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

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

2. Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the order passed by the Tribunal is perverse in nature as the Tribunal has not considered grounds urged in miscellaneous petition, even when there is mistake apparent on record, which attracts Section 254 of the Act? 3. The facts in issue in both the appeals are that

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 PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER vs. M/S OBULAPURAM MINING

Bench: K.SOMASHEKAR,UMESH M ADIGA

disallowed. The jurisdictional error committed is the assessing officer’s jurisdiction is Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, 35 Central Circle-1(3), Bengaluru, whereas the jurisdictional assessing officer of the transporters is located in Andhra Pradesh. 31.Admittedly, as stated above the evidence of transporters recorded by the assessing officer outside the jurisdiction of Bengaluru has not been taken on record

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

The appeal stands dismissed

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

2) SCC 744 : (1991) 187 ITR 688] this Court, while dealing with the powers of the Appellate Assistant Commissioner observed that an appellate authority has all the powers which the original authority may have in deciding the question before it subject to the restrictions or limitations if any prescribed by the statutory provisions. In the absence of any statutory provision

THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX vs. M/S. TRIDENT MINERALS (100% EOU)

The appeal is dismissed

Bench: H.T.NARENDRA PRASAD,B.VEERAPPA

disallowance of excess profits amounting to Rs.4,76,52,385/- due to transactions with sister concerns from computation of the eligible deduction under Section 10B of the Act, was withdrawn by the assessee, when actually it was not so. 2. It is the case of the assessee that they carry business of production, manufacture and export of iron

THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX vs. M/S ING VYSYA BANK LTD

The appeal is dismissed

Bench: P.S.DINESH KUMAR,C.M. POONACHA

Section 250 read with 254 of the IT Act, the CIT(Appeals) partly allowed the appeal. The assessee challenged the same in ITA No.1143/Bang/2010 for the A.Y.2004-05, before the ITAT and the same has been allowed in part by the impugned order. 4. Revenue has framed following questions in this appeal: 1 ' IT Act ' for short 2 Commissioner of Income