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

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

ii) of the Act cannot be allowed. It was further held that depreciation is only allowable as per proviso (5) to 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

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

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

COFFEEDAY GLOBAL LTD. vs. ADDITIONAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX

In the result, the orders dated 21

Bench: ALOK ARADHE,ASHOK S.KINAGI

ii) and proviso to Section 36(1)(iii) prior to its amendment used the word 'extension'. 6. It is also submitted that for the subsequent Assessment Years 2011-12, 2012-13, 2013-14, the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) had granted relief to the assessee. It is also contended that against the capital work in progress, the assessee had substantial

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

ii) and proviso to Section 36(1)(iii) prior to its amendment used the word 'extension'. 6. It is also submitted that for the subsequent Assessment Years 2011-12, 2012-13, 2013-14, the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) had granted relief to the assessee. It is also contended that against the capital work in progress, the assessee had substantial

COFFEEDAY GLOBAL LTD. vs. ADDITIONAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX

In the result, the orders dated 21

Bench: ALOK ARADHE,ASHOK S.KINAGI

ii) and proviso to Section 36(1)(iii) prior to its amendment used the word 'extension'. 6. It is also submitted that for the subsequent Assessment Years 2011-12, 2012-13, 2013-14, the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) had granted relief to the assessee. It is also contended that against the capital work in progress, the assessee had substantial

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 deduction of the donation made to Khandesh Education Society holding it as a contribution contemplated by Section 40A(9) of the Act. This view was confirmed by the appellate authority. The Tribunal, however, set aside the findings recorded by the authorities below on this question holding that the donation was made by the assessee to the Khandesh Education

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

Bench: S.SUJATHA,VINEET SARAN

ii) of Section 32(1) of the Act. 3. The dispute in the present appeal is with regard to the allowance of the balance 10% depreciation in the next assessment year 2008-09, so that the benefit of the total 20% allowable depreciation under Section 32(1)(iia) of the Act was given. The Assessing Officer, as well

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

PR COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX vs. M/S GMR SPORTS PVT LTD

In the result, the appeals are disposed of

Bench: ALOK ARADHE,M.G.S. KAMAL

disallowed the same on the ground that the franchise fee is for the acquisition of business rights which is an intangible asset in terms of Section 32(1)(ii

PR. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX vs. M/S. GMR SPORTS PVT. LTD.,

In the result, the appeals are disposed of

Bench: ALOK ARADHE,M.G.S. KAMAL

disallowed the same on the ground that the franchise fee is for the acquisition of business rights which is an intangible asset in terms of Section 32(1)(ii

PR. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX vs. M/S. GMR SPORTS PVT. LTD.,

In the result, the appeals are disposed of

Bench: ALOK ARADHE,M.G.S. KAMAL

disallowed the same on the ground that the franchise fee is for the acquisition of business rights which is an intangible asset in terms of Section 32(1)(ii

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

THE PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER vs. M/S OBULAPURAM MINING

Bench: K.SOMASHEKAR,UMESH M ADIGA

1)(iii) of the Act. The said provision corresponds to s 10(2)(ii) of the old Act. In Madhav Prasad Jatia vs. CIT (1979) 10 CTR (SC) 375: (1979) 118 ITR 200 (SC): TC 15R.823, the apex Court observed that the conditions required to be fulfilled to be entitled to deduction were that the interest must have been paid