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 in respect of capital work in progress was upheld by 11 relying on Proviso to Section 36(1)(iii) which was brought into force with effect from 01.04.2004. (iv

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 in respect of capital work in progress was upheld by 11 relying on Proviso to Section 36(1)(iii) which was brought into force with effect from 01.04.2004. (iv

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

The appeals stand disposed of, accordingly

Bench: N.KUMAR,B.SREENIVASE GOWDA

36,31,184/-. The return of income was processed u/s 143(1) on 15.07.2004 and the case was selected for scrutiny - 21 - and notice u/s 143(2) was issued on 15.07.2004. A questionnaire was issued on 16.8.2005 calling for certain details and the compliance was fixed on 22.8.2005. The assessee-company also had international transactions with Associated Enterprises, which were

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

The appeals stand disposed of, accordingly

Bench: N.KUMAR,B.SREENIVASE GOWDA

36,31,184/-. The return of income was processed u/s 143(1) on 15.07.2004 and the case was selected for scrutiny - 21 - and notice u/s 143(2) was issued on 15.07.2004. A questionnaire was issued on 16.8.2005 calling for certain details and the compliance was fixed on 22.8.2005. The assessee-company also had international transactions with Associated Enterprises, which were

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) Without prejudice to the above, the learned CIT (A) erred in holding that the provision made

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 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 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

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 PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER vs. M/S OBULAPURAM MINING

Bench: K.SOMASHEKAR,UMESH M ADIGA

iv) Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal is justified in law in deleting the addition made by the Assessing Authority on the issue of expenditure and maintenance of helicopter when the Assessee had 6 failed to discharge its onus to prove the said claim of expenditure as genuine and that the entire expenditure

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

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

iv) xxx (2) For the purposes xxx of Section 32. 21 (2A) Where xxx of Section 32A. (2AA) Where the assessee xxx authority. (2AB) (1) Where a company engaged in the business of [bio-technology or in [any business of manufacture or production of any article or thing, not being an article or thing specified in the list

M/S J K INDUSTRIES LTD vs. THE JOINT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX

In the result, all questions are answered against the

Bench: D.V.SHYLENDRA KUMAR,B.SREENIVASE GOWDA

disallowed as notional and not real, for the purpose of computation under Section 80HHC of the Act, the tribunal not having taken a contrary view, it is to be deemed as rejected. 17. Be that as it may, what we find is that in respect of the first item of incentive viz., premium sale exim scrips amount as claimed

M/S BANGALORE ELECTRICITY SUPPLY COMPANY LTD vs. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX

In the result, the order passed by the tribunal

Bench: ALOK ARADHE,R. NATARAJ

disallowed the deduction claimed under Section 80IA(4)(iv)(c) of the Act and held that computation as per normal provisions of the Act is adopted as tax liability. 3. The assessee thereupon filed an appeal before the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), who by an order dated 10.02.2009 dismissed the appeal preferred by the assessee. The assessee thereupon approached

PR.COMMISSIONER OF INCOMETAX-2 vs. M/S.EYGBS (INDIA) PVT LTD

Bench: CHIEF JUSTICE,C M JOSHI

36,90,62,637 Income from business of the undertaking after voluntary TP adjustment 80,51,42,179 7. The AO had denied the exemption under Section 10AA on the TP pricing adjustment made pursuant to the APA. The AO reasoned that the assessee had declared the TP adjustments in anticipation of such TP adjustments