M/S HUBLI ELECTRICITY SUPPLY CO. vs. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER

In the result, the appeals are disposed of as

Bench: JOHN MICHAEL CUNHA,S.SUJATHA

Section 263 of the Act before the Commissioner of Income Tax : 8 : (Appeals) (for short, ‘the CIT(A)’) which came to be dismissed. The appellant filed an appeal before the ITAT against the said appellate order passed by the CIT(A). In the meantime, assessment orders for the A.Y.2007-08 as well as 2008-09 were concluded in the same line

THE PR. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX vs. M/S CISCO SYSTEMS

The appeals are allowed; the impugned

Bench: SATISH CHANDRA SHARMA,R. NATARAJ

disallowed the excess depreciation claimed on networking equipments. 3. The Principal Commissioner of Income Tax, Bengaluru, thereafter issued a notice under Section 263

THE PR COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX vs. SHRI H NAGARAJA

Bench: S SUNIL DUTT YADAV,B.S PATIL

Section 263 of the Act. The Commissioner had disallowed the expenses claimed by the assessee under the heads, ‘labour charges

M/S SUBEX LTD vs. THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-III,

In the result, appeal is partly allowed as indicated

Bench: S.SUJATHA,RAVI V HOSMANI

disallowed. The High Court of Gujarat in Deep Industries Ltd., supra has recorded the submissions advanced by the learned counsel for the respective parties. It is observed that the Commissioner of Income Tax has invoked Section 263

THE PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER vs. M/S OBULAPURAM MINING

Bench: K.SOMASHEKAR,UMESH M ADIGA

disallowed 40% of the total expenditure claimed towards transportation expenses at Rs.387,76,69,992/- under Section 37(1) of the Act. However, the Tribunal granted relief to the Assessee by deleting the additions made on this issue by following its earlier order in the case of 9 assessee for the assessment year 2010-11. The tax effect

K R SATYANARAYANA vs. THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX

In the result, the orders passed by the Commissioner of

Bench: ALOK ARADHE,H.T. NARENDRA PRASAD

Section 263 of the Act was issued by the Commissioner of Income Tax inter alia on the ground that income assessed as income from business in respect of sale of properties as income from capital gains to disallow

M/S SUTURES INDIA PVT LTD vs. THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX

In the result the substantial questions of law are

Bench: ALOK ARADHE,R. NATARAJ

disallowances to the tune of Rs.17,96,250/- were made and demand of Rs.9,85,514/- was made on the assessee. Thereafter, the Commissioner of Income Tax invoked the powers under Section 263

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

M/S BHORUKA POWER CORPORATION LTD vs. FORMERLY THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER

In the result, this appeal is allowed

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

Section 263 of the Act and disallowed a sum of Rs.54,97,000/- as excess claim of deduction under Section

M/S KARNATAKA STATE BEVERAGES CORPORATION LTD vs. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX

In the result, the orders passed by the

Bench: ALOK ARADHE,H.T. NARENDRA PRASAD

disallowance of privilege fee was not subject matter of either the issue in the notice or order passed under Section 263

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

disallow such expenditure over the years. On a further reasoning, it is sought to be demonstrated with reference to comparison of the 36 privilege fee, the turnover, taxable income of the petitioner for the years 2004-05 upto 2011-12 as if to demonstrate the shocking increase in the turnover of the petitioner while the taxable income has remained

THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX vs. M/S. STATE BANK OF MYSORE

In the result, the order passed by the tribunal

Bench: ALOK ARADHE,H.T. NARENDRA PRASAD

263 of the Act held that order dated 27.03.2006 passed by the Assessing Officer was erroneous and prejudicial to the interest of revenue. Thereafter, the Assessing Officer passed an order dated 31.07.2008 under Section 143(3) of the Act making various addition / disallowances

HERBALIFE INTERNATIONAL INDIA PVT LTD vs. THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX

In the result, the assessee's appeal for

Bench: V KAMESWAR RAO,S RACHAIAH

disallowed. 6. Aggrieved by the order of Respondent No.1, the appellant preferred an appeal before the Tribunal challenging the jurisdiction of Respondent No.1 to initiate Revisionary Proceedings under Section 263

COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-III vs. M/S SUBHASH KABINI POWER CORPORATION LIMITED

Bench: B.V.NAGARATHNA,JAYANT PATEL

263 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as “the Act”) of the revisional authority. 4. In our view, the principal question, which may arise is, as to whether by sale of carbon credit capital receipt is generated or a profit out of the business activity of the assessee. More or less, in a similar case, the Apex

THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX vs. M/S CHEMSWORTH PVT LTD

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

Bench: ALOK ARADHE,H.T. NARENDRA PRASAD

Section 263 of the Act to the assessee and held that non consideration of disallowable expenditure under Section 14A of the Act is erroneous

THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX vs. M/S ALLOY STEELS,

Accordingly, the appeal filed by the appellant is allowed

Bench: N.K.PATIL,B.MANOHAR

263 are unwarranted? ii) Whether on the facts and the circumstances of the case, the ITAT is right in law in holding that Explanation No.3 to Section 40 (b) of the Income Tax Act, 1961, cannot empower the Assessing Officer to go behind the net profit shown in the P and L account nor he is empowered to decide under

THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, vs. SHRIDHAR SHANTINATH PATRAVALI,

Bench: This Court : I. Whether On Facts & In Law The Tribunal Is Right In Ignoring The Provisions Of Second & Third Provisos To Section 194C(3), As Per Which The Assessee Respondent Was Under Obligation To Furnish Particulars Of The Declaration Filed By The Sub-Contractors In Form No.15-I Within Due Date I.E., 30.06.2008, In The Manner Prescribed I.E., Form No. 15J, To The Prescribed Authority & Failure To Do So, Attracts Violation Of Provisions Of Section 194C(3) Viz., Disallowance Under Section 40(A)(Ia)?

Section 263 of the Act by determining the revised income at Rs.57,56,290/- , along with other additions, an addition of Rs.48,61,154/- was also made to the total income of the assessee. The latter amount is the amount of disallowance

PR COMMISSIONER OF vs. M/S GMR HYDERABAD

Appeals stand disposed of accordingly

Bench: S.SUJATHA,RAVI V HOSMANI

disallowance made under Section 40[a][ia] for non deduction of TDS on payments made to Director’s towards sitting fees by holding that - 16 - the amendment will apply for A.Y.2014-15 onwards?” In ITA No.381/2018: “1. Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law the Tribunal was correct in law in holding that incriminating