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) towards illegal mining. 387,76,69,992/- 4. Aggrieved by the above additions, the assessee

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

COFFEEDAY GLOBAL LTD. vs. ADDITIONAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX

In the result, the orders dated 21

Bench: ALOK ARADHE,ASHOK S.KINAGI

35,920/- under Rule 8D(2)(iii) 9 was upheld and to the extent of the balance of Rs.70,36,410/- under Rule 8D(2)(ii), was deleted, and it was held that the said investments were made out of funds owned by the assessee and not from the borrowed funds. (ii) the disallowance of interest on borrowed capital allegedly

COFFEEDAY GLOBAL LTD. vs. ADDITIONAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX

In the result, the orders dated 21

Bench: ALOK ARADHE,ASHOK S.KINAGI

35,920/- under Rule 8D(2)(iii) 9 was upheld and to the extent of the balance of Rs.70,36,410/- under Rule 8D(2)(ii), was deleted, and it was held that the said investments were made out of funds owned by the assessee and not from the borrowed funds. (ii) the disallowance of interest on borrowed capital allegedly

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

35,920/- under Rule 8D(2)(iii) 9 was upheld and to the extent of the balance of Rs.70,36,410/- under Rule 8D(2)(ii), was deleted, and it was held that the said investments were made out of funds owned by the assessee and not from the borrowed funds. (ii) the disallowance of interest on borrowed capital allegedly

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

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

II, 6TH FLOOR, VANIJYA THERIGE KARYALAYA - 1, GANDHINAGAR, BENGALURU - 560009 2 . DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF COMMERCIAL TAXES, AUDIT - 4.5, DVO – 4, ROOM No.204, 2ND FLOOR, VTK - 2, KORAMANGALA BANGALORE - 560047 R - 2 - 3 . STATE OF KARNATAKA DEPARTMENT OF FINANCE BY ITS SECRETARY VIDHANA SOUDHA AMBEDKAR VEEDHI BANGALORE – 560001 …RESPONDENTS [BY SRI T.K.VEDAMURTHY, AGA.] THESE WRIT PETITIONS ARE FILED UNDER ARTICLES

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

ii. For the second term of the lease, if the charges exceed Rs. 4/= per square foot per month, the same shall be payable by the LESSEE, only on the same being justified by the LESSOR and subject to LESSORS providing information and documents, to the satisfaction of the LESSEE, entitling the LESSORS to the escalation.” 16. Thus, the lessee

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

ii. For the second term of the lease, if the charges exceed Rs. 4/= per square foot per month, the same shall be payable by the LESSEE, only on the same being justified by the LESSOR and subject to LESSORS providing information and documents, to the satisfaction of the LESSEE, entitling the LESSORS to the escalation.” 16. Thus, the lessee

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

ii. For the second term of the lease, if the charges exceed Rs. 4/= per square foot per month, the same shall be payable by the LESSEE, only on the same being justified by the LESSOR and subject to LESSORS providing information and documents, to the satisfaction of the LESSEE, entitling the LESSORS to the escalation.” 16. Thus, the lessee

BIOCON LIMITED vs. THE DEPUTY

In the result, the impugned order dated 30

Bench: ALOK ARADHE,R. NATARAJ

ii) ALLOW THE APPEAL AND SET ASIDE THE ORDER OF THE ITAT DATED 30.04.2014 IN ITA NO.369/BANG/2010 (ANNEXURE- 'C') TO THE EXTENT QUESTIONED HEREIN. THIS I.T.A. COMING ON FOR HEARING, THIS DAY, ALOK ARADHE J., DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: JUDGMENT This appeal under Section 260-A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’, for short

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 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

M/S SUBEX LTD vs. THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-III,

In the result, appeal is partly allowed as indicated

Bench: S.SUJATHA,RAVI V HOSMANI

disallowed subsequently, without disturbing the decision in the initial year. Post action of the Assessing Officer in modifying the original order would not cure the flaw pointed out in Shasun Chemicals and Drugs Ltd., supra. We answer this issue in favour of the assessee and against the Revenue. Re. Substantial Question of Law No.2: 13. Learned counsel for both sides

HINDUSTAN AERONAUTICS LIMITED vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER

In the result, the order of the

Bench: ALOK ARADHE,H.T. NARENDRA PRASAD

ii) the Tribunal was correct in upholding the disallowance made under Section 14A of the Act? 3. I.T.A.No.468/2016 was admitted by a bench of this Court vide order dated 13.06.2017 on the following substantial question of law: Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was 5 justified in directing the assessing officer

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

ii) the Tribunal was correct in upholding the disallowance made under Section 14A of the Act? 3. I.T.A.No.468/2016 was admitted by a bench of this Court vide order dated 13.06.2017 on the following substantial question of law: Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was 5 justified in directing the assessing officer