THE PR. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX vs. M/S. TE CONNECTIVITY INDIA PVT. LTD.,

Accordingly dispose of the appeal as allowed

Bench: ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE,S RACHAIAH

26 - ITA No.53 of 2024 assessment has undergone radical changes in recent years. It deserves to be noted that the present assessment was made under Section 143(3) of the Income-tax Act. In other words, the Assessing Officer was statutorily required to make the assessment under Section 143(3) after scrutiny and not in a summary manner as contemplated

ANTONY PARAKAL KURIAN vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX

Appeal is allowed in part

Bench: S.SUJATHA,S RACHAIAH

disallowed. As regards the claim made under Section 54F of the Act, the same came to be rejected. M.P.No.163/Bang/2020 was preferred by the assessee, the same came to be allowed in part directing Commissioner of Income Tax [Appeals] to decide 9 regarding eligibility of Rs.90 lakhs also under Section 54 of the Act, rejecting the other contentions raised

M/S DELHI INTERNATIONAL AIRPORT LTD vs. THE PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX

Bench: S.SUJATHA,S VISHWAJITH SHETTY

section has conditions set out in said provisions are fully satisfied to make such disallowance?” Additional substantial question of law in ITA No.702/2018; - 26

M/S DELHI INTERNATIONAL vs. THE PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER

Bench: S.SUJATHA,S VISHWAJITH SHETTY

section has conditions set out in said provisions are fully satisfied to make such disallowance?” Additional substantial question of law in ITA No.702/2018; - 26

M/S DELHI INTERNATIONAL AIRPORT LTD vs. THE PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX

Bench: S.SUJATHA,S VISHWAJITH SHETTY

section has conditions set out in said provisions are fully satisfied to make such disallowance?” Additional substantial question of law in ITA No.702/2018; - 26

THE PR. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, vs. M/S. DELHI INTERNATIONAL AIRPORT PVT. LTD.,

Bench: S.SUJATHA,S VISHWAJITH SHETTY

section has conditions set out in said provisions are fully satisfied to make such disallowance?” Additional substantial question of law in ITA No.702/2018; - 26

THE PR. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, vs. M/S. DELHI INTERNATIONAL AIRPORT PVT. LTD.

Bench: S.SUJATHA,S VISHWAJITH SHETTY

section has conditions set out in said provisions are fully satisfied to make such disallowance?” Additional substantial question of law in ITA No.702/2018; - 26

THE PR. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, vs. M/S. DELHI INTERNATIONAL AIRPORT PVT. LTD.,

Bench: S.SUJATHA,S VISHWAJITH SHETTY

section has conditions set out in said provisions are fully satisfied to make such disallowance?” Additional substantial question of law in ITA No.702/2018; - 26

THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX vs. TEXAS INSTRUMENTS INDIA PVT LTD

The appeals are dismissed

Bench: SATISH CHANDRA SHARMA,SURAJ GOVINDARAJ

disallowed by the AO. The claim of the Assessee is this that if the worker is employed on permanent basis then only because in the present year, working days are less than 300 days because he was employed after 66 days from the start of the previous year then no deduction will be available under this section in respect

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

disallowed invoking provisions of Section 40(a)(ii). One other aspect which the Assessing Officer has sought to hold against the petitioner is as to the State Government being a shareholder of the company and therefore, was receiving privilege fee far in excess of what the shareholder would be entitled to, is also an observation which is irrelevant

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 processing charges and capitalization of Rs.9,77,23,650/-. The tribunal has therefore decided the claim of the assessee on merits. Since, the omission on the part of the tribunal was an error apparent on the face of the record, and therefore, the tribunal rightly invoked provisions of Section 254(2) of the Act. Similarly, in view

COFFEEDAY GLOBAL LTD. vs. ADDITIONAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX

In the result, the orders dated 21

Bench: ALOK ARADHE,ASHOK S.KINAGI

disallowance of processing charges and capitalization of Rs.9,77,23,650/-. The tribunal has therefore decided the claim of the assessee on merits. Since, the omission on the part of the tribunal was an error apparent on the face of the record, and therefore, the tribunal rightly invoked provisions of Section 254(2) of the Act. Similarly, in view

COFFEEDAY GLOBAL LTD. vs. ADDITIONAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX

In the result, the orders dated 21

Bench: ALOK ARADHE,ASHOK S.KINAGI

disallowance of processing charges and capitalization of Rs.9,77,23,650/-. The tribunal has therefore decided the claim of the assessee on merits. Since, the omission on the part of the tribunal was an error apparent on the face of the record, and therefore, the tribunal rightly invoked provisions of Section 254(2) of the Act. Similarly, in view

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

disallowed the deduction claimed by the assessee under Section 35(2AB) of the Act incurred by assessee in a sum of ` 48,41,82,071/- as against the total deduction of ` 89,35,48,193/- claimed by the assessee under Section 35(2AB) of the Act. 41 26

ESSILOR INDIA PVT LTD vs. THE DEPUTY

In the result, the order passed by the Tribunal dated 07

Bench: ALOK ARADHE,SHIVASHANKAR AMARANNAVAR

disallowance under Section 14A could at all have been made in the appellant's case for the assessment year in question? 2. Facts leading to filing of this appeal briefly stated are that the assessee is engaged in the business of processing and trading of ophthalmic lenses. The assessee received dividend of Rs.26,26

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

The appeal stands dismissed

Bench: S.SUJATHA,J.M.KHAZI

26-B, ELECTRONICS CITY HOSUR ROAD, BANGALORE-560100 PAN: AAACJ4330P. …RESPONDENT (BY SRI SHREEHARI KUTSA, ADV.) THIS INCOME TAX APPEAL IS FILED UNDER SECTION 260-A OF INCOME TAX ACT 1961, ARISING OUT OF ORDER DATED 22.01.2020 AND 10.04.2019 PASSED IN M.P.No.142/BANG/2019 AND ITA No.1518/BANG/2018 [ANNEXURE – A AND B] FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2013-14, PRAYING TO: [1] DECIDE

PR.COMMISSIONER OF INCOMETAX-2 vs. M/S.EYGBS (INDIA) PVT LTD

Bench: CHIEF JUSTICE,C M JOSHI

26. Absent any enhancement of income, the proviso to sub- section (4) of Section 92C is clearly inapplicable. 27. It is also necessary to bear in mind that in terms of Section 10AA (1) of the Act, the profits and gains of an enterprise, as referred to in clause (j) of Section 2 of the Special Economic Zones

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