COFFEEDAY GLOBAL LTD. vs. ADDITIONAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX

In the result, the orders dated 21

Bench: ALOK ARADHE,ASHOK S.KINAGI

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 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

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 of interest on borrowed capital as attributable to capital work in progress at 12% as against

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

The appeals stand disposed of, accordingly

Bench: N.KUMAR,B.SREENIVASE GOWDA

disallowed on the ground that the DTAA with USA and Canada shows that the claim is admissible only for the taxes paid under Income Tax Act in India and Federal tax in USA and Canada. In coming to the said conclusion the authorities have failed to notice Section 91 of the Act. Statutorily the assessee would be entitled to deduction

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

The appeals stand disposed of, accordingly

Bench: N.KUMAR,B.SREENIVASE GOWDA

disallowed on the ground that the DTAA with USA and Canada shows that the claim is admissible only for the taxes paid under Income Tax Act in India and Federal tax in USA and Canada. In coming to the said conclusion the authorities have failed to notice Section 91 of the Act. Statutorily the assessee would be entitled to deduction

THE PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER vs. M/S OBULAPURAM MINING

Bench: K.SOMASHEKAR,UMESH M ADIGA

V. ITO. iii) 13 Taxmann.Com 62 (Mumbai) (2011) - Diageo India (P) Ltd. V.DCIT. 13. It is further contended that on the issue of claim of bogus transportation expenses, the Tribunal has grossly erred in rejecting various findings of fact gathered by the assessing authority before arriving at the conclusion to disallow a portion of the claim of transportation expenses

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

V- ADVOCATE) AND: SMT. G LAKSHMI ARUNA NO.8, ASHOKNAGAR HAVAMABAVI SURUGUPPA ROAD BELLARY – 583 101 PAN:AFJPA 5974P …RESPONDENT (BY SRI. MAYANK JAIN - ADVOCATE) 2 THIS ITA IS FILED UNDER SECTION 260A OF THE INCOME TAX ACT, 1961, PRAYING TO: i)FORMULATE THE SUBSTANTIAL QUESTIONS OF LAW STATED IN THE APPEAL AND ALLOW THE APPEAL; ii) SET ASIDE THE ORDERS

PR. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX vs. SHRI. GALI JANARDHANA REDDY

Bench: K.SOMASHEKAR,UMESH M ADIGA

V- ADVOCATE) AND: SHRI GALI JANARDHANA REDDY NO.8, ASHOKNAGAR HAVAMABAVI, SURUGUPPA ROAD BELLARY – 583 101, PAN:AFBPR 9737D. …RESPONDENT (BY SRI. MAYANK JAIN - ADVOCATE) THIS ITA IS FILED UNDER SECTION 260A OF THE INCOME TAX ACT, 1961, PRAYING TO: i)FORMULATE THE SUBSTANTIAL QUESTIONS OF LAW STATED IN THE APPEAL AND ALLOW THE APPEAL; ii) SET ASIDE THE ORDERS PASSED

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

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

V ARAVIND, ADVOCATE) AND M/S DAVANGERE DISTRICT CENTRAL CO-OPERATIVE BANK LIMITED D. C. OFFICE CIRCLE CHITRADURGA 577 501 PAN: AAATD 6617N …RESPONDENT (BY SRI A.SHANKAR, SR. ADVOCATE FOR SRI M.LAVA, ADVOCATE) - - - 2 THIS I.T.A. IS FILED UNDER SEC. 260-A OF INCOME TAX ACT 1961, ARISING OUT OF ORDER DATED 03.12.2014 PASSED IN ITA NO.894/BANG/2012, FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR

MANIPAL HEALTH SYSTEMS

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

Bench: ARAVIND KUMAR

V ARAVIND, ADVOCATE) AND M/S DAVANGERE DISTRICT CENTRAL CO-OPERATIVE BANK LIMITED D. C. OFFICE CIRCLE CHITRADURGA 577 501 PAN: AAATD 6617N …RESPONDENT (BY SRI A.SHANKAR, SR. ADVOCATE FOR SRI M.LAVA, ADVOCATE) - - - 2 THIS I.T.A. IS FILED UNDER SEC. 260-A OF INCOME TAX ACT 1961, ARISING OUT OF ORDER DATED 03.12.2014 PASSED IN ITA NO.894/BANG/2012, FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR

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

V, ADVOCATE) AND M/S. DAVANGERE DISTRICT CENTRAL CO-OP BANK LTD., #311, 'A' BLOCK, DEVARAJA URS LAYOUT 2 DAVANGERE-577 006 PAN: AAATD 6617N …RESPONDENT (BY SRI A.SHANKAR SR. ADVOCATE FOR SRI M.LAVA, ADVOCATE) - - - THIS I.T.A. IS FILED UNDER SECTION 260-A OF INCOME TAX ACT 1961, ARISING OUT OF ORDER DATED 03.11.2017 PASSED IN ITA NO.1093/BANG/2014, FOR THE ASSESSMENT

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

36(1)(vii). Therefore, on this aspect, the Revenue is in appeal before us raising the 3rd question for examination. 11. Yet another claim which became contentious before the Assessing Officer was relating to the amount that can be claimed as a part of its business expenditure which was in the nature of expenditure incurred or spent in respect

THE PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER vs. M/S OBULAPURAM MINING

Bench: K.SOMASHEKAR,UMESH M ADIGA

V.—Any relief claimed in the plaint, which is not expressly granted by the decree, shall 39 for the purposes of this section, be deemed to have been refused. Explanation VI.—Where persons litigate bona fide in respect of a public right or of a private right claimed in common for themselves and others, all persons interested in such right

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

V and elsewhere in this lease or any of the annexures, which include but are not limited to requisite lifts and generators, Primary Power and 100% Power Back-up for Common Areas, cleanliness and upkeep of Tower A maintenance of lawn security services, water etc. for Tower A and such necessary area of IBC Knowledge Park for ingress and egress

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

V and elsewhere in this lease or any of the annexures, which include but are not limited to requisite lifts and generators, Primary Power and 100% Power Back-up for Common Areas, cleanliness and upkeep of Tower A maintenance of lawn security services, water etc. for Tower A and such necessary area of IBC Knowledge Park for ingress and egress

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

V and elsewhere in this lease or any of the annexures, which include but are not limited to requisite lifts and generators, Primary Power and 100% Power Back-up for Common Areas, cleanliness and upkeep of Tower A maintenance of lawn security services, water etc. for Tower A and such necessary area of IBC Knowledge Park for ingress and egress

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 under Section 14A of the Act towards borrowed fund on investment should be restricted to 2% of the interest on tax free bonds. The Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) deleted