COFFEEDAY GLOBAL LTD. vs. ADDITIONAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX

In the result, the orders dated 21

Bench: ALOK ARADHE,ASHOK S.KINAGI

Section 36(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

THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX GULBARGA vs. M/S MANJUNATHA COTTON AND GINNING FACTORY

The appeals are dismissed

Bench: ARAVIND KUMAR,N.KUMAR

disallowances on different grounds for both the assessments years under dispute. This was not so. That being the situation, they declined to interfere with the order passed by the Appellate Authority who has cancelled the levy of penalty. Aggrieved by the said order, the Revenue has preferred this appeal. 22 ITA Nos.5025 and 5026 of 2010 12. The assessee

COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-III vs. M/S SYNDICATE BANK

The appeals are disposed of

Bench: ALOK ARADHE,RAVI V HOSMANI

III C.R. BUILDING, QUEENS ROAD BANGALORE. 2. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE-1, CANARA TOWERS MISSION HOSPITAL ROAD UDUPI-576101, MANGALORE. 3. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE-I, UDUPI-576101. ... APPELLANTS (By Sri. E.I. SANMATHI, ADV.) AND: M/S. SYNDICATE BANK H.O. ACCOUNTS DEPT. MANIPAL. ... RESPONDENT (By Sri. T. SURYANARAYANA RAO, ADV.) - - - 3 THIS I.T.A. IS FILED U/S.260-A

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)(iii

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

The appeals stand disposed of, accordingly

Bench: N.KUMAR,B.SREENIVASE GOWDA

III, it does not therefore partake of the nature of total income chargeable to tax as per the - 29 - provisions of Section 4 of the Act. In the second instance, no tax was paid on this income. The credit is being claimed under the provisions of Section 90, which is applicable for the grant of relief in respect of income

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

The appeals stand disposed of, accordingly

Bench: N.KUMAR,B.SREENIVASE GOWDA

III, it does not therefore partake of the nature of total income chargeable to tax as per the - 29 - provisions of Section 4 of the Act. In the second instance, no tax was paid on this income. The credit is being claimed under the provisions of Section 90, which is applicable for the grant of relief in respect of 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

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 CIT (A) erred in holding that the deduction should be restricted to the provision made in the books of accounts; iii

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 COMMISSIONER vs. M/S VIJAYA BANK

Bench: ALOK ARADHE,H.T. NARENDRA PRASAD

III STAGE, BANGALORE-560 085. …APPELLANTS (BY SRI K.V.ARAVIND, ADV.) AND: M/S. VIJAYA BANK, HO: CENTRAL ACCOUNTS DEPT. 41/2, M.G.ROAD, BANGALORE-560 001. …RESPONDENT (BY SRI T.SURYANARAYANA, ADV.) - - - 2 THIS I.T.A. IS FILED UNDER SECTION 260-A OF I.T.ACT, 1961, ARISING OUT OF ORDER DATED: 11/09/2015 PASSED IN ITA NO.747/Bang/2011, FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2007-2008. THIS I.T.A. COMING

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(1)(iii

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

M/S EMBASSY DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION vs. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER

The appeals are dismissed

Bench: B.MANOHAR,VINEET SARAN

Section 36(1)(iii) of the Act. The finding recorded by the Tribunal, First Appellate Authority and Assessing Authority, is without any basis and contrary to law. Apart from that, the 11 profit earned out of the said amount has already been taxed for the assessment year 2003-04. Disallowing

THE PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER vs. M/S OBULAPURAM MINING

Bench: K.SOMASHEKAR,UMESH M ADIGA

iii) Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal is justified in law in holding that. Explanation-1 to section 37 is not attracted to case of the assessee respondent on the issue of disallowance of expenditure relating to illegal mining in spite of the conclusive findings as to the illegal mining carried

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. STATE BANK OF MYSORE

In the result, the order passed by the tribunal

Bench: ALOK ARADHE,H.T. NARENDRA PRASAD

1)(viia) of the Act is allowed as a deduction and recorded a perverse finding? (ii) Whether the Appellate Authorities were correct in holding that the employees contribution deducted by the assessee has been credited under the respective statue before filing return of income and hence allowable deduction without taking into consideration, the provisions of Section 2(24)(x) read

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

III. The LESSEE shall pay an amount of Rs.52,44,962/= to the LESSORS, towards one month’s rent in advance and to be adjusted against rent for Tower A on commencement of the lease and after complete adjustment of the said amount, the LESSEE shall pay further amounts towards rent as provided herein. If, however, the lease is terminated