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

disallowance under Section 14A read with Rule8D(2)(ii) of the Rules and therefore, same conclusion ought to have been drawn to Section 36(1

COFFEEDAY GLOBAL LTD. vs. ADDITIONAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX

In the result, the orders dated 21

Bench: ALOK ARADHE,ASHOK S.KINAGI

disallowance under Section 14A read with Rule8D(2)(ii) of the Rules and therefore, same conclusion ought to have been drawn to Section 36(1

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

The appeals stand disposed of, accordingly

Bench: N.KUMAR,B.SREENIVASE GOWDA

II) Allow the appeal and set aside the order passed by the ITAT Bangalore in ITA No.1072/BNG/2007, dated 30-01-2009 confirming the order of the Appellate Commissioner and confirm the order passed by the Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle – 1(3), Bangalore, in the interest of justice and equity. These I.T.As coming on for hearing, this

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

The appeals stand disposed of, accordingly

Bench: N.KUMAR,B.SREENIVASE GOWDA

II) Allow the appeal and set aside the order passed by the ITAT Bangalore in ITA No.1072/BNG/2007, dated 30-01-2009 confirming the order of the Appellate Commissioner and confirm the order passed by the Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle – 1(3), Bangalore, in the interest of justice and equity. These I.T.As coming on for hearing, this

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

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

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

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(1

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

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

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

II, Bangalore. This appeal coming on for hearing this day, SHYLENDRA KUMAR J., delivered the following: JUDGMENT This appeal under Section 260-A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (‘the Act’ for short) is by the Revenue, questioning the correctness of the order dated 10th March 2005 passed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Bangalore Bench in ITA No.382 (Bang

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

ii) ALLOW THE APPEAL AND SET ASIDE THE ORDERS PASSED BY THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, BENGALURU IN ITA NO. 1093/BANG/2014 DATED 03.11.2017 AND CONFIRM THE ORDER OF THE APPELLATE COMMISSIONER CONFIRMING THE ORDER PASSED BY THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD- 1, DAVANAGERE AND ETC. THIS I.T.A COMING ON FOR HEARING THIS DAY, SATISH CHANDRA SHARMA J., DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING

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

36 23. Turning my attention back to the facts on hand, case-papers would indicate that on return of income being filed by the assessee, same came to be processed by the first respondent by issuing notices under Section 143(2) and 142(1) of the Act. After clarification called for and on discussion with the assessee’s representative, draft

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)(vii) of the Act. 3. The assessee thereupon filed an appeal before the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) who by an order dated 18.07.2013 partly allowed the appeal preferred by the assessee. The revenue thereupon filed an appeal before the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (hereinafter referred to as 'the tribunal' for short). The tribunal

THE PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER vs. M/S OBULAPURAM MINING

Bench: K.SOMASHEKAR,UMESH M ADIGA

36(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

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

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