PR COMMISSIONER OF vs. M/S SYNGENE

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

Bench: ALOK ARADHE,H.T. NARENDRA PRASAD

disallowed the deduction claimed by the assessee under Section 10B of the Act to the tune of Rs.21,31,59,892/- and added it to the income of the assessee. 5 4. The assessee thereupon approached the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) who by an order dated 22.06.2012 inter alia held that Assessing Officer as unable to counter the claim

M/S KARNATAKA STATE INDUSTRIAL AND INFRASTRUCTURE DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION LTD vs. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX

The appeal is allowed and the impugned

Bench: SATISH CHANDRA SHARMA,V SRISHANANDA

Section 39(1) of the Karnataka Value Added Tax Act, 2003 [for short, 'the KVAT Act'] for the tax- period between April 2013 and March 2014. The appellant has failed in the reassessment proceedings on two issues viz., [i] the disallowance of Input Tax Credit [ITC] of Rs.36,600/- claimed by the appellant on the purchase from

THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX vs. M/S BHARAT FRITZ WERNER LTD

In the result, appeal is disposed of

Bench: ALOK ARADHE,R. NATARAJ

275 (SC). 9 5. On the other hand, learned counsel for the assessee submitted that the revenue did not dispute the expenditure incurred by the assessee and the claim of the assessee for deduction was not under Section 32 and therefore, it was not necessary for the assessee to prove that the tools which were purchased by the assessee were

CERNER HEALTHCARE SOLUTIONS PVT LTD vs. THE ADDITIONAL COMMISSIONER OF

In the result, the appeal has been allowed

Bench: ALOK ARADHE,R. NATARAJ

275/-. Thus, the claim of the appellant for refund was disallowed to the extent of Rs.7,85,207/-. The inputs disallowed included purchase of food and beverages, housekeeping and office maintenance, printing and stationery, maintenance of photocopying machine, sports goods and events, car lease etc. 3. Thereupon, the appellant filed an appeal before the Appellate Authority. The Appellate Authority

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

In the result, the appeal has been allowed

Bench: S.SUJATHA,VINEET KOTHARI

275/-. Thus, the claim of the appellant for refund was disallowed to the extent of Rs.7,85,207/-. The inputs disallowed included purchase of food and beverages, housekeeping and office maintenance, printing and stationery, maintenance of photocopying machine, sports goods and events, car lease etc. 3. Thereupon, the appellant filed an appeal before the Appellate Authority. The Appellate Authority

THE PR COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX vs. M/S ARUBA NETWORKS INDIA

In the result, the petition stands dismissed

Bench: Going To The Merits Of The Case & Consequently Whether Or Not The Tribunal’S Order Is Vitiated & Hence Unsustainable In Law?

disallowing the excess expenses claimed re-determined the coffee income. Being aggrieved, the petitioner filed appeal before the Joint Commissioner who partly allowed the appeal. On - 4 - further appeal before the Tribunal, the appeal has been dismissed. Being aggrieved by the same, the assessee has preferred this petition. 4. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner would submit that the language

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 of the Act of 1961 on 5.3.2015 and called upon the assessee to explain as to why the assessment order passed by the assessing officer under Section 143(3) of the Act of 1961 should

COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX vs. M/S PRIMAL PROJECTS (P) LTD

In the result, the appeal fails and is hereby

Bench: ALOK ARADHE,H.T. NARENDRA PRASAD

disallowed the claim of the assessee on the ground that the assessee has not complied with the mandatory conditions stipulated in the scheme framed by the Central Government viz., Industrial Parks Scheme, 2002 (hereinafter referred to as 'the scheme' for short). It was held that five software companies were not located at the time of sale of built up area

THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX vs. SRI.B.KUMAR GOWDA MINE OWNERS

Bench: B.V.NAGARATHNA,B.A.PATIL

SECTION 260A OF THE INCOME TAX ACT PRAYING TO ALLOW THE APPEAL AND TO SET ASIDE THE ORDER DATED 28/08/2014 PASSED IN I.T.A.NO.1054/(BANG)/2012 ON THE FILE OF THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, BANGALORE BENCH-A, BANGALORE, INSOFAR AS UPHOLDING THE DELETION OF DISALLOWANCE OF EXPENSES OF LITIGATION IS CONCERNED BY CONFIRMING THE ORDER DATED 05/06/2012 PASSED

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

Bench: S.SUJATHA,VINEET KOTHARI

disallowance which was allowed by CIT(A). 03. Aggrieved by the CIT (A)’s decision, Revenue had moved in appeal before this Tribunal and this Tribunal in ITA.1260/Bang/2012, dt.05.04.2013, for A.Y.2009-10 had held as under: (para 5.3.3. & para 5.4 of ITAT order already quoted above as an extract in the Order of the CIT (Appeals) hence not quoted again) Date

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

Bench: S.SUJATHA,VINEET KOTHARI

disallowance which was allowed by CIT(A). 03. Aggrieved by the CIT (A)’s decision, Revenue had moved in appeal before this Tribunal and this Tribunal in ITA.1260/Bang/2012, dt.05.04.2013, for A.Y.2009-10 had held as under: (para 5.3.3. & para 5.4 of ITAT order already quoted above as an extract in the Order of the CIT (Appeals) hence not quoted again) Date

COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX vs. SHRI V.MADHUSUDHAN

In the result, the petition stands dismissed

Bench: ALOK ARADHE,R. NATARAJ

disallowance of expenditure under traveling, boarding and lodging 1/4th of the claim and to issue revised demand notice. Being - 5 - aggrieved by the same, the assessee has preferred this petition. 4. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner would submit that the language employed in Section 8 of the Act is clear and the powers of the Assessing Authority are limited

SMT LATHA H M vs. DR RAVINDRANATH H M

In the result, the petition stands dismissed

Bench: H.B.PRABHAKARA SASTRY

disallowance of expenditure under traveling, boarding and lodging 1/4th of the claim and to issue revised demand notice. Being - 5 - aggrieved by the same, the assessee has preferred this petition. 4. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner would submit that the language employed in Section 8 of the Act is clear and the powers of the Assessing Authority are limited

M/S WIPRO LIMITED vs. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX

The appeals stand disposed of, accordingly

Bench: N.KUMAR,B.SREENIVASE GOWDA

Section 145A of the Income- tax Act which was inserted with effect from assessment year 1999-2000. The said provision states that the valuation of stock should include the amount of any tax duty, cess or fee - 94 - actually paid or incurred to bring the goods to its present location and condition. The Department has followed a consistent stand

THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX vs. M/S WIPRO LTD

The appeals stand disposed of, accordingly

Bench: N.KUMAR,B.SREENIVASE GOWDA

Section 145A of the Income- tax Act which was inserted with effect from assessment year 1999-2000. The said provision states that the valuation of stock should include the amount of any tax duty, cess or fee - 94 - actually paid or incurred to bring the goods to its present location and condition. The Department has followed a consistent stand

M/S J K CEMENT WORKS vs. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA

Bench: H.B.PRABHAKARA SASTRY,VINEET KOTHARI

disallowed in the hands of the petitioner assessee. 14. We are fully fortified in our view by the recent decision of another Division Bench of this Court in the case of Hindustan Uniliver Limited Vs. State of Karnataka [2016] 90 VST 236 (Karn), wherein the Division Bench of this Court, relying upon the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court

THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX vs. PRAVEEN V DODDANAVAR

Bench: SREENIVAS HARISH KUMAR,VINEET KOTHARI

disallowed in the hands of the petitioner assessee. 14. We are fully fortified in our view by the recent decision of another Division Bench of this Court in the case of Hindustan Uniliver Limited Vs. State of Karnataka [2016] 90 VST 236 (Karn), wherein the Division Bench of this Court, relying upon the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court

THE BAILHONGAL URBAN COOPERATIVE BANK LTD vs. THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX

Bench: S.ABDUL NAZEER,P.S.DINESH KUMAR

disallowed in the hands of the petitioner assessee. 14. We are fully fortified in our view by the recent decision of another Division Bench of this Court in the case of Hindustan Uniliver Limited Vs. State of Karnataka [2016] 90 VST 236 (Karn), wherein the Division Bench of this Court, relying upon the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court