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

The appeals stand disposed of, accordingly

Bench: N.KUMAR,B.SREENIVASE GOWDA

Section 90(1)(a)(ii). He further submitted that in cases where income is subjected to tax, there is no difficulty. The entire amount subjected to tax is given credit - 35 - which is known as “ordinary tax credit”. Further, in the case of the agreements where expression used is subjected to tax on income derived, if the entire export income

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

The appeals stand disposed of, accordingly

Bench: N.KUMAR,B.SREENIVASE GOWDA

Section 90(1)(a)(ii). He further submitted that in cases where income is subjected to tax, there is no difficulty. The entire amount subjected to tax is given credit - 35 - which is known as “ordinary tax credit”. Further, in the case of the agreements where expression used is subjected to tax on income derived, if the entire export income

THE PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER vs. M/S OBULAPURAM MINING

Bench: K.SOMASHEKAR,UMESH M ADIGA

35,052/- by making various additions, which reads as under: Additional / Issues Rs. Transfer pricing adjustments 112,20,92,081/- Claim of bogus transportation expenses of iron ore 40% attributable towards illegal mining. 86,43,47,335/- Disallowance of expenses claimed under section 37(1

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

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

M/S ANS CONSTRUCTIONS LTD vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF COMMERCIAL

Bench: The Hon’Ble Mrs.Justice S.Sujatha

35 of the KVAT Act cannot defeat the substantial claim under Section 10[3] of the Act. The revenue is entitled only to verify that the sale invoices are genuine and valid and such input tax credit claim is not duplicate fictitious or bogus. Indeed, it was not in dispute the input tax credit was claimed in the returns filed

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

1)(iii) when the said proviso was inapplicable to the case of the appellant and no part of the 6 borrowed capital was utilized for investment in work in progress in any event? (iii) The tribunal was correct in upholding the disallowance of interest on borrowed capital as attributable to capital work in progress at 12% as against

COFFEEDAY GLOBAL LTD. vs. ADDITIONAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX

In the result, the orders dated 21

Bench: ALOK ARADHE,ASHOK S.KINAGI

1)(iii) when the said proviso was inapplicable to the case of the appellant and no part of the 6 borrowed capital was utilized for investment in work in progress in any event? (iii) The tribunal was correct in upholding the disallowance of interest on borrowed capital as attributable to capital work in progress at 12% as against

COFFEEDAY GLOBAL LTD. vs. ADDITIONAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX

In the result, the orders dated 21

Bench: ALOK ARADHE,ASHOK S.KINAGI

1)(iii) when the said proviso was inapplicable to the case of the appellant and no part of the 6 borrowed capital was utilized for investment in work in progress in any event? (iii) The tribunal was correct in upholding the disallowance of interest on borrowed capital as attributable to capital work in progress at 12% as against

BIOCON LIMITED vs. THE DEPUTY

In the result, the impugned order dated 30

Bench: ALOK ARADHE,R. NATARAJ

1. The Tribunal was right in holding that the appellant was not entitled to deduction under Section 35(2AB) of the Act to the extent the expenses eligible for deduction under the said provisions pertained to unit entitled for deduction under Section 10B of the Act? 3 2. The Tribunal was right in holding that Section

THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX vs. M/S. IBC KNOWLEDGE PARK PVT. LTD.,

In the result, the appeals filed by the Revenue

Bench: B.V.NAGARATHNA,JAYANT PATEL

disallowed as it was not meant for management of construction, but on other expenses, such as advertisement, sales promotion etc. Therefore, the income had to be assessed under the head income from other sources. The Tribunal held that the income had to be assessed as business income and the assessee could not have received a sum of Rs.78.25 lakh without

THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX vs. M/S. IBC KNOWLEDGE PARK PVT. LTD.,

In the result, the appeals filed by the Revenue

Bench: B.V.NAGARATHNA,JAYANT PATEL

disallowed as it was not meant for management of construction, but on other expenses, such as advertisement, sales promotion etc. Therefore, the income had to be assessed under the head income from other sources. The Tribunal held that the income had to be assessed as business income and the assessee could not have received a sum of Rs.78.25 lakh without

THE COMMISIONER OF INCOME-TAX vs. M/S IBC KNOWLEDGE PARK PVT LTD

In the result, the appeals filed by the Revenue

Bench: B.V.NAGARATHNA,JAYANT PATEL

disallowed as it was not meant for management of construction, but on other expenses, such as advertisement, sales promotion etc. Therefore, the income had to be assessed under the head income from other sources. The Tribunal held that the income had to be assessed as business income and the assessee could not have received a sum of Rs.78.25 lakh without

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 to the extent of Rs.28,166/- only. The order of the Assessing Officer was confirmed by the Tribunal in appeal under Section 253 of the Act. However, having considered its order in respect of the assessee for the assessment year 1990-91 to 1997-98, the Tribunal allowed the deduction of Rs.28,166/-. 31. Learned counsel appearing

THE PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER vs. M/S OBULAPURAM MINING

Bench: K.SOMASHEKAR,UMESH M ADIGA

disallowed. The jurisdictional error committed is the assessing officer’s jurisdiction is Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, 35 Central Circle-1(3), Bengaluru, whereas the jurisdictional assessing officer of the transporters is located in Andhra Pradesh. 31.Admittedly, as stated above the evidence of transporters recorded by the assessing officer outside the jurisdiction of Bengaluru has not been taken on record

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

In the result, the order of the

Bench: ALOK ARADHE,H.T. NARENDRA PRASAD

disallowance of its claim under Section 14A of the Act was made. The revenue has filed an appeal being aggrieved by the order of the tribunal granting the alternate relief to the assessee for Research and Development expenses under Section 35(1

HINDUSTAN AERONAUTICS LIMITED vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER

In the result, the order of the

Bench: ALOK ARADHE,H.T. NARENDRA PRASAD

disallowance of its claim under Section 14A of the Act was made. The revenue has filed an appeal being aggrieved by the order of the tribunal granting the alternate relief to the assessee for Research and Development expenses under Section 35(1

MANGALORE REFINERY AND PETROCHEMICALS LTD vs. PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX

In the result, I pass the following:-

Bench: The Hon'Ble Mr.Justice S.R.Krishna Kumar

35,39,722 Disallowance under section 14A of the IT Act 3,84,26,370 Assessment Year - 2009-10 Particulars AY 2009-10 Disallowance of freight charges under section 40(a)(i) of the IT Act 80,19,59,658 Disallowance of Depreciation 13,09,37,839 Disallowance under section