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

The appeals stand disposed of, accordingly

Bench: N.KUMAR,B.SREENIVASE GOWDA

32 - Government may enter into an agreement with the Government of any country outside India for the avoidance of double taxation of income under this Act and under the corresponding law in force in that country. For application of Section 90(1)(b), one is required to go with the DTAA. Though the assessing officer has discussed this issue

COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX vs. SHRI RUPESH ANAND

The appeals are dismissed

Bench: ARAVIND KUMAR,JAYANT PATEL

1 to Section 32 of the Act, was of the view that the assessee has incurred capital expenditure and therefore is entitled to depreciation thereon @ 10%. Accordingly, the Assessing Officer disallowed

COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX vs. SHRI RUPESH

The appeals are dismissed

Bench: ARAVIND KUMAR,JAYANT PATEL

1 to Section 32 of the Act, was of the view that the assessee has incurred capital expenditure and therefore is entitled to depreciation thereon @ 10%. Accordingly, the Assessing Officer disallowed

COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX vs. SHRI RUPESH

The appeals are dismissed

Bench: ARAVIND KUMAR,JAYANT PATEL

1 to Section 32 of the Act, was of the view that the assessee has incurred capital expenditure and therefore is entitled to depreciation thereon @ 10%. Accordingly, the Assessing Officer disallowed

COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX vs. SHRI RUPESH

The appeals are dismissed

Bench: ARAVIND KUMAR,JAYANT PATEL

1 to Section 32 of the Act, was of the view that the assessee has incurred capital expenditure and therefore is entitled to depreciation thereon @ 10%. Accordingly, the Assessing Officer disallowed

THE PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER vs. M/S OBULAPURAM MINING

Bench: K.SOMASHEKAR,UMESH M ADIGA

Disallowance of Expenses under Explanation to section 37(1) and in respect of third issue i.e., addition made on account of sale of Land, the ITAT set-aside the order of CIT (A) on that issue and restored the matter to A.O. for a fresh decision with the same directions as were given by the tribunal

M/S PADMINI PRODUCTS (P) LTD., vs. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX

In the result, the aforesaid

Bench: ALOK ARADHE,H.T. NARENDRA PRASAD

Section 32(1) of the Act, which was actually existing in the earlier concern viz., the partnership firm. Therefore, the original assets, which were added in the company at the time of succession cannot be considered for the purposes of depreciation. Accordingly, the claim for depreciation on intangible assets was disallowed

THE PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX vs. M/S NIRANI SUGARS LTD.,

In the result, the impugned orders passed by

Bench: ALOK ARADHE,P.G.M.PATIL

1. THE PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, DR.B.R.AMBEDKAR ROAD, BELAGAVI. 2. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2, BELGAUM. ………..APPELLANTS (BY SRI.Y.V.RAVIRAJ, ADVOCATE) AND : M/S.NIRANI SUGARS LTD., 166, KULALI CROSS, JAMAKHANDI ROAD, MUDHOL, DISTRICT BAGALKOT-587 313, PAN : AABCN2166J. …..RESPONDENT (BY SRI.ASHOK A.KULKARNI AND SHRI.H.R.KAMBIYAVAR, ADVOCATES FOR RESPONDENT) THIS I.T.A. IS FILED UNDER SECTION 260A OF THE INCOME

THE PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX vs. M/S NIRANI SUGARS LTD.,

In the result, the impugned orders passed by

Bench: ALOK ARADHE,P.G.M.PATIL

1. THE PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, DR.B.R.AMBEDKAR ROAD, BELAGAVI. 2. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2, BELGAUM. ………..APPELLANTS (BY SRI.Y.V.RAVIRAJ, ADVOCATE) AND : M/S.NIRANI SUGARS LTD., 166, KULALI CROSS, JAMAKHANDI ROAD, MUDHOL, DISTRICT BAGALKOT-587 313, PAN : AABCN2166J. …..RESPONDENT (BY SRI.ASHOK A.KULKARNI AND SHRI.H.R.KAMBIYAVAR, ADVOCATES FOR RESPONDENT) THIS I.T.A. IS FILED UNDER SECTION 260A OF THE INCOME

PR. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX vs. SHRI. GALI JANARDHANA REDDY

Bench: K.SOMASHEKAR,UMESH M ADIGA

disallowed(Rs) (I) (II) (III) 2009-10 28,76,23,325 9,95,82,217 2010-11 2,29,05,056 1,46,91,363 15. Of these the assessing officer found that to the extent given in column (III) above, the appellant was unable to substantiate the said expenses claimed before the assessing officer. 16.In respect of assessment

PR. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX vs. SMT. G. LAKSHMI ARUNA

Bench: K.SOMASHEKAR,UMESH M ADIGA

Disallowed (Rs.) (I) (II) (III) 2009-10 28,76,23,325 9,95,82,217 2010-11 2,29,05,056 1,46,91,363 Of these, the Assessing Officer found that to the extent given in column 3 above, the appellant was unable to substantiate the said expense claimed before the Assessing Officer. 16. In respect of assessment

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

In the result, the appeals are partly allowed

Bench: B.MANOHAR,DILIP B.BHOSALE

disallowed the claim of respondent-assessee, treating a sum of `14,396/- for the assessment year 1986-87, `1,32,315/- for the assessment year 1987-88 and `68,570/- for the assessment year 1992-93 as an expenditure under Section

THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX vs. M/S RITTAL INDIA PVT LTD.,

Bench: S.SUJATHA,VINEET SARAN

Section 32(1)(iia) of the Act was given. The Assessing Officer, as well as the Appellate Commissioner, disallowed the claim

COFFEEDAY GLOBAL LTD. vs. ADDITIONAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX

In the result, the orders dated 21

Bench: ALOK ARADHE,ASHOK S.KINAGI

disallowance of interest under Section 36(1)(iii) of the Act. Similarly twin issues arise for consideration in this appeal viz., whether loan processing and other charges can be allowed as revenue expenditure or has to be treated as capital in nature and whether the tribunal has acted in contravention of the provision of Section

COFFEEDAY GLOBAL LTD. vs. ADDITIONAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX

In the result, the orders dated 21

Bench: ALOK ARADHE,ASHOK S.KINAGI

disallowance of interest under Section 36(1)(iii) of the Act. Similarly twin issues arise for consideration in this appeal viz., whether loan processing and other charges can be allowed as revenue expenditure or has to be treated as capital in nature and whether the tribunal has acted in contravention of the provision of 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

disallowance of interest under Section 36(1)(iii) of the Act. Similarly twin issues arise for consideration in this appeal viz., whether loan processing and other charges can be allowed as revenue expenditure or has to be treated as capital in nature and whether the tribunal has acted in contravention of the provision of Section

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

disallow the claim made by an assessee under Section 35(2AB) which does not include any expenditure incurred in the acquisition of rights, in, or arising out of scientific research would be within the domain of the jurisdictional assessing Officer. In other words, the issue of jurisdiction of assessing officer to examine such claim, is an issue which requires

THE PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER vs. M/S OBULAPURAM MINING

Bench: K.SOMASHEKAR,UMESH M ADIGA

1(3), Bengaluru (for short “DCIT”) and to pass such other suitable order as deems fit in this appeal. 2.Heard the learned standing counsel Shri Y.V. Raviraj for appellants/revenue and the learned counsel Shri Mayank Jain for respondent/assessee. Perused the order dated 29.07.2016 passed by the ITAT in ITA Nos.653 (Bang) 2015 for the Assessment Year 2010-11. 3.The factual