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

30,758/-, by order dated 12.03.2015. For the Assessment year 2009-10, an order under Section 143(3) read with Section 147 and 254 of the Act was passed as on 19.03.2015, disallowing

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

disallowance under Section 14A is not sustainable. In support of aforesaid submissions, reliance has been placed on decisions in 'CIT VS. WALFORT SHARE & STOCK BROKERS (P) LTD', (2010) 326 ITR 1 (SC), 'CIT VS. ALOM EXTRUSIONS LTD', (2009) 319 ITR 306 (SC), 'CIT V. SYNDICATE BANK', (2020) 115 TAXMANN.COM 287 (KARNATAKA), 'CIT VS. KARNATAKA BANK LTD', (2014) 226 TAXMAN

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

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 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

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

PR. COMMISSIONER OF vs. M/S TALLY SOLUTIONS PVT LTD.,

In the result, the appeals fail and are hereby

Bench: ALOK ARADHE,H.T. NARENDRA PRASAD

30 to Section 38 of the Act and it has to establish that the assessee is not hit by Section 40 of the Act. It is urged that in the present case, assessee is not entitled for claiming deduction under Section 32 of the Act since, the assessee is hit by Section 40 of the Act due to non deduction

PR COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-7 vs. M/S TALLY SOLUTIONS PVT LTD

In the result, the appeals fail and are hereby

Bench: ALOK ARADHE,H.T. NARENDRA PRASAD

30 to Section 38 of the Act and it has to establish that the assessee is not hit by Section 40 of the Act. It is urged that in the present case, assessee is not entitled for claiming deduction under Section 32 of the Act since, the assessee is hit by Section 40 of the Act due to non deduction

PR COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-7 vs. M/S TALLY SOLUTIONS PVT LTD

In the result, the appeals fail and are hereby

Bench: ALOK ARADHE,H.T. NARENDRA PRASAD

30 to Section 38 of the Act and it has to establish that the assessee is not hit by Section 40 of the Act. It is urged that in the present case, assessee is not entitled for claiming deduction under Section 32 of the Act since, the assessee is hit by Section 40 of the Act due to non deduction

THE PR COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX vs. M/S MPHASIS LTD

The appeal is dismissed accordingly

Bench: SATISH CHANDRA SHARMA,V SRISHANANDA

disallowance of foreign exchange loss on forward contract. 13 15. Learned counsel for the revenue has argued before this Court that such loss is a notional and contingent and has to be treated as speculative loss in terms of Section 43(5) of the Income tax Act. He has also argued before this Court that the Tribunal without examining

SMT. PUNEETHA @ PUNEETHA B. A. vs. SRI. D. RAVI

The appeal is dismissed accordingly

Bench: R DEVDAS

disallowance of foreign exchange loss on forward contract. 13 15. Learned counsel for the revenue has argued before this Court that such loss is a notional and contingent and has to be treated as speculative loss in terms of Section 43(5) of the Income tax Act. He has also argued before this Court that the Tribunal without examining

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

30 the assessee. As per sub-section (4) of Section 35(2AB) the prescribed authority would in turn submit its report to the approval of the said facility to the Director General (Income tax Exemptions) in Form No.3CL within 60 days as per Rule 7(A)(b) of the Rules. Approval of such expenditure incurred by a company under 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

section 30 to 38 of the Act and therefore the claim of depreciation on the capitalized assets is also subject to disallowance

THE PR.COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIT(A) vs. M/S. ADVAITH MOTORS PVT LTD.,

Bench: S.SUJATHA,VINEET KOTHARI

Disallowance under Section 14A of Rs.2,48,85,000/- as expenses to earn exempted Dividend income of Rs.1,80,30

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

Bench: CHIEF JUSTICE,C M JOSHI

30. It is also relevant to refer to the CBDT Circular No.14/2006. Paragraphs 24.1 and 24.2 of the said circular, as quoted in the assessment order, are reproduced below: "24.1 The existing provisions of section 92C provide for computation of arm's length price. Sub-section (4) of the said section provides that the Assessing Officer may compute the total

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

Bench: S.SUJATHA,VINEET KOTHARI

Disallowance under Section 14A of Rs.2,48,85,000/- as expenses to earn exempted Dividend income of Rs.1,80,30