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

section 263, to make a fresh assessment in - 29 - ITA No.53 of 2024 accordance with law, after considering the above. The AO shall examine the issues discussed above and conduct necessary inquiries in accordance with law and CBDT guidelines. The AO shall consider disallowance

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

29 profession. A plain reading of Section 37 of the IT Act would indicate that an expenditure to be allowed under this section should fit into the central theme of the section and the question was, of allowing or disallowing

COFFEEDAY GLOBAL LTD. vs. ADDITIONAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX

In the result, the orders dated 21

Bench: ALOK ARADHE,ASHOK S.KINAGI

29,824/-. The said return of income was taken up for assessment and an order of assessment was passed on 31.03.2013 by which following disallowances were made to the income of the assessee. (i) disallowance of claim under Section

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

29,824/-. The said return of income was taken up for assessment and an order of assessment was passed on 31.03.2013 by which following disallowances were made to the income of the assessee. (i) disallowance of claim under Section

COFFEEDAY GLOBAL LTD. vs. ADDITIONAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX

In the result, the orders dated 21

Bench: ALOK ARADHE,ASHOK S.KINAGI

29,824/-. The said return of income was taken up for assessment and an order of assessment was passed on 31.03.2013 by which following disallowances were made to the income of the assessee. (i) disallowance of claim under Section

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

Bench: S.SUJATHA,S VISHWAJITH SHETTY

disallowance?” Additional substantial question of law in ITA No.702/2018; - 26 - “Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Tribunal is right in law in deleting addition of income of Rs.69,04,00,000/- by directing the assessing authority to allow it on cash basis which was made by assessing authority on accrual basis

M/S DELHI INTERNATIONAL vs. THE PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER

Bench: S.SUJATHA,S VISHWAJITH SHETTY

disallowance?” Additional substantial question of law in ITA No.702/2018; - 26 - “Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Tribunal is right in law in deleting addition of income of Rs.69,04,00,000/- by directing the assessing authority to allow it on cash basis which was made by assessing authority on accrual basis

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

Bench: S.SUJATHA,S VISHWAJITH SHETTY

disallowance?” Additional substantial question of law in ITA No.702/2018; - 26 - “Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Tribunal is right in law in deleting addition of income of Rs.69,04,00,000/- by directing the assessing authority to allow it on cash basis which was made by assessing authority on accrual basis

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

Bench: S.SUJATHA,S VISHWAJITH SHETTY

disallowance?” Additional substantial question of law in ITA No.702/2018; - 26 - “Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Tribunal is right in law in deleting addition of income of Rs.69,04,00,000/- by directing the assessing authority to allow it on cash basis which was made by assessing authority on accrual basis

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

Bench: S.SUJATHA,S VISHWAJITH SHETTY

disallowance?” Additional substantial question of law in ITA No.702/2018; - 26 - “Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Tribunal is right in law in deleting addition of income of Rs.69,04,00,000/- by directing the assessing authority to allow it on cash basis which was made by assessing authority on accrual basis

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

Bench: S.SUJATHA,S VISHWAJITH SHETTY

disallowance?” Additional substantial question of law in ITA No.702/2018; - 26 - “Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Tribunal is right in law in deleting addition of income of Rs.69,04,00,000/- by directing the assessing authority to allow it on cash basis which was made by assessing authority on accrual basis

M/S KHODAY INDIA LTD vs. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX

In the result, the orders passed by the Assessing

Bench: ALOK ARADHE,HEMANT CHANDANGOUDAR

29,682/-. The return was selected for scrutiny. The Assessing Officer passed an order under Section 143(3) of the Act and additions were made on account of 50% of sales promotion expenses, disallowance

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

29,960/-. The Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) by an order dated 25.03.2008 passed under Section 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

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

Bench: CHIEF JUSTICE,C M JOSHI

disallowance was founded on the proviso to Section 92C(4) of the Act. - 12 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:36360-DB ITA No. 107 of 2025 C/W ITA No. 106 of 2025 17. It is material to note that the TP adjustments are made pursuant to the APA entered into by the Assessee with CBDT. Section 92CC

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

29 Rule 6(1B) of the Income Tax Rules, 1961 is the Secretary, Department of Scientific and Industrial Research. 19. A perusal of the above rule would clearly indicate that the prescribed authority for the purposes of sub-section (1) of Section 35(2AB) is the Secretary, Department of Scientific and Industrial Research. Sub- section (3) of the Section

THE PR. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME -TAX vs. M/S KAWASAKI MICRO ELECTRONICS INC

The appeal is disposed of

Bench: ALOK ARADHE,H.T. NARENDRA PRASAD

29-06-2015 CONFIRMING THE ORDER OF THE APPELLATE COMMISSIONER AND CONFIRM THE ORDER PASSED BY THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, INTERNATIONAL TAXATION, WARD-1(2), BENGALURU. (III) TO PASS SUCH OTHER SUITABLE ORDERS AS THIS HON'BLE COURT DEEMS FIT OT GRANT IN THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE AND EQUITY. THIS ITA COMING

THE PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER vs. M/S OBULAPURAM MINING

Bench: K.SOMASHEKAR,UMESH M ADIGA

Disallowance of expenses claimed under section 37(1) towards illegal mining. 387,76,69,992/- 4. Aggrieved by the above additions, the assessee preferred an appeal before the Tribunal against the additions made hereinabove, which came to be allowed. 5. It is stated in the appeal that during the assessment proceedings, it was observed that, M/s GLA Trading International