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

The appeals stand disposed of, accordingly

Bench: N.KUMAR,B.SREENIVASE GOWDA

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

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

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

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

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)(iv

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)(iv

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

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

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

iv) Notwithstanding anything contained to the contrary, the rent payable shall be [(Actual Plinth Area + (27% of Actual Plinth Area)) multiplied by Rs.22/-] for the first three years and thereafter for the 4th and the 5th year it shall be multiplied Rs.25.30p (instead of Rs.22/-) per Sq. Ft. per month of actual plinth area.” - 21 - Clauses

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

iv) Notwithstanding anything contained to the contrary, the rent payable shall be [(Actual Plinth Area + (27% of Actual Plinth Area)) multiplied by Rs.22/-] for the first three years and thereafter for the 4th and the 5th year it shall be multiplied Rs.25.30p (instead of Rs.22/-) per Sq. Ft. per month of actual plinth area.” - 21 - Clauses

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

iv) Notwithstanding anything contained to the contrary, the rent payable shall be [(Actual Plinth Area + (27% of Actual Plinth Area)) multiplied by Rs.22/-] for the first three years and thereafter for the 4th and the 5th year it shall be multiplied Rs.25.30p (instead of Rs.22/-) per Sq. Ft. per month of actual plinth area.” - 21 - Clauses

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 WIPRO LTD

In the result, the appeals are partly allowed

Bench: B.MANOHAR,DILIP B.BHOSALE

1 of Section 36 as it stood in 1986-87, it appears that it was necessary for the assessee to establish before the Assessing Officer that any debt or part thereof had become a bad debt in the previous year. In view thereof, learned counsel appearing for the Revenue submitted that no such efforts were made by the assessee

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

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

35,052 29,37,88,047 20,78,28,883 37,27,49,142 Balance 37,28,12,027 42,92,10,516 18. A perusal of the orders of the ITAT will indicate that it upheld even the first contention of the Petitioner that the freight charges payable to non-residents outside India are not chargeable tax in India

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

35,052 29,37,88,047 20,78,28,883 37,27,49,142 Balance 37,28,12,027 42,92,10,516 18. A perusal of the orders of the ITAT will indicate that it upheld even the first contention of the Petitioner that the freight charges payable to non-residents outside India are not chargeable tax in India