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 and disallowance of interest under Section 36(1)(iii) of the Act. Similarly twin

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 and disallowance of interest under Section 36(1)(iii) of the Act. Similarly twin

SYNDICATE BANK vs. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX

The appeal is allowed in

Bench: SATISH CHANDRA SHARMA,R. NATARAJ

disallowance to the extent of Rs.92,14,87,404/- under Section 36 (1)(viia) of the Income Tax Act, 1961; ii) The learned

THE COMMISSIONER vs. M/S VIJAYA BANK

Bench: ALOK ARADHE,H.T. NARENDRA PRASAD

section 36(1)(viii) of the Act even though the assessee is not an eligible entity under the provisions of the Act prior to amendment w.e.f. 01.04.2008? 5. Whether on the facts and in the circumstances on the case, the Tribunal were right in law in deleting the disallowance

THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, vs. M/S CORPORATION BANK

In the result, the third substantial question of law is also answered

Bench: ALOK ARADHE,H.T. NARENDRA PRASAD

disallowance under Section 36(1), disallowance under Section 40a(ia) and disallowance under Section 36(1)(vii) of the Act. 3. The assessee

THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX vs. M/S. STATE BANK OF MYSORE

In the result, the order passed by the tribunal

Bench: ALOK ARADHE,H.T. NARENDRA PRASAD

36(1)(viia) of the Act, the subsequent recoveries are not taxable under Section 41(1) or Section 41(4) of the Act. It was further held that disallowance

THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX vs. M/S DAVANGERE DISTRICT CENTRAL CO-OPERATIVE BANK

In the result, we do not find any merit in this appeal, the same fails

Bench: SATISH CHANDRA SHARMA,V SRISHANANDA

disallowed Rs.17,38,222 under section 40(a)(ia) by considering the available materials on record as well as provisions of the Act"?" 4. The learned counsel appearing for the appellants- revenue has fairly submitted before this court that so far as substantial question Nos.3 & 4 are concerned, he is not pressing for the same. 5. Learned counsel

MANIPAL HEALTH SYSTEMS

In the result, we do not find any merit in this appeal, the same fails

Bench: ARAVIND KUMAR

disallowed Rs.17,38,222 under section 40(a)(ia) by considering the available materials on record as well as provisions of the Act"?" 4. The learned counsel appearing for the appellants- revenue has fairly submitted before this court that so far as substantial question Nos.3 & 4 are concerned, he is not pressing for the same. 5. Learned counsel

M/S HAJEE A.P.BAVA & COMPANY vs. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX

In the result, the appeal is

Bench: ALOK ARADHE,M.NAGAPRASANNA

disallowance of the bad debts written off under Section- 36(1)(vii) of IT Act read with Section- 36(2)? (ii) Whether

COFFEE DAY GLOBAL LIMITED vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX

The appeal is allowed

Bench: SATISH CHANDRA SHARMA,R. NATARAJ

disallowance under Section 14A read with Rule 8D(ii) of the Rules and therefore, the same conclusion ought to have been applied to Section 36

THE PR. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX vs. M/S. DAVANGERE DISTRICT CENTRAL CO-OP BANK LTD.,

In the result, we do not find any merit in this appeal,

Bench: SATISH CHANDRA SHARMA,V SRISHANANDA

disallowances were mainly in respect of Provisions for NPA's, RO & SAO's cost, accrued interest on NPA's, addition on account of Bank Reconciliation Provisions. Assessee preferred an appeal before the CIT(A). The CIT(A) partly allowed the appeal. As such Revenue and Assessee both preferred the appeal before the Tribunal. The Tribunal has partly allowed both

THE PR. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX vs. M/S. TE CONNECTIVITY INDIA PVT. LTD.,

Accordingly dispose of the appeal as allowed

Bench: ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE,S RACHAIAH

disallowance u/s 40(a)(ia) on the transactions discussed above. He shall give the assessee an opportunity to furnish necessary evidence to establish his claim and explain why the proposed additions be not made to income. The AO shall consider the facts, and the results of any enquiries made, as well as the explanation furnished by the assessee, and make

KARNATAKA STATE BEVERAGES CORPORTION LIMITED vs. THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX

Bench: The Hon’Ble Mr. Justice Anand Byrareddy Writ Petition No.12872 Of 2013 (T-It) Connected With Writ Petition No.14687 Of 2014 (T-It), Writ Petition No.15910 Of 2015 (T-It) & Writ Petition No.17514 Of 2015 (T-It) In W.P.No.12872 Of 2013 Between: Karnataka State Beverages Corporation Limited, Represented By It’S Executive Director (Finance), Sri. Shrikant B Vanahalli, Aged About 57 Years, No.78, Seethalakshmi Towers, Mission Road, Bangalore 560 027. …Petitioner

Section 147 and 254 of the Act was passed as on 19.03.2015, disallowing the privilege fee of Rs.479,36,60,000/- and made

THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX vs. ING VYSYA BANK LTD

In the result, this appeal is allowed in part,

Bench: B.MANOHAR,D.V.SHYLENDRA KUMAR

disallowed as the requirement of Section 36(1)(vii) and 36(1)(vii-a) had not been complied with by the assessee

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

In the result, the appeals are partly allowed

Bench: B.MANOHAR,DILIP B.BHOSALE

36 of the Act, and even if that was so the question of allowing the expenditure under Section 37(1) of the Act would not arise. 18. In our opinion, the expenditure towards the religious funds, charitable institutions, social clubs or for charity do not stand to the test of commercial expediency. In any case, the expenditure under these heads

M/S KHODAY INDIA LTD vs. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX

In the result, the orders passed by the Assessing

Bench: ALOK ARADHE,HEMANT CHANDANGOUDAR

Section 36(1)(va) of the Act and upheld the addition with regard to disallowance under Section 14A of the Act read

THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX vs. TEXAS INSTRUMENTS INDIA PVT LTD

The appeals are dismissed

Bench: SATISH CHANDRA SHARMA,SURAJ GOVINDARAJ

disallowed under Section 43- B which, as stated above, was inserted with effect from 1st April, 1984. It is also relevant to note that the first proviso which came into force with effect from 1st April, 1988 was not on the statute book when the assessments were made in the case of Allied Motors (P) Limited (supra). However, the Assessee

M/S YENEPOYA RESINS & CHEMICALS vs. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX

In the result, we do not find any merit in this

Bench: ALOK ARADHE,RAVI V HOSMANI

disallowing the benefit to the appellant as claimed by it. It is also submitted that infact the substantial questions of law framed by this Court do not arise for consideration in this appeal. 6. We have considered the submissions made by the learned counsel for the parties and have perused the 8 record. From perusal of Section 36