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

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

The appeals stand disposed of, accordingly

Bench: N.KUMAR,B.SREENIVASE GOWDA

36. The Apex Court had an occasion to go into the validity of the agreements entered into under these provisions and their enforceability in the case of UNION OF INDIA AND ANOTHER VS. AZADI BACHAO ANDOLAN AND ANOTHER reported in 263 ITR 706. Dealing with the purpose of provisions for avoidance of double taxation, the Supreme Court at page

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

The appeals stand disposed of, accordingly

Bench: N.KUMAR,B.SREENIVASE GOWDA

36. The Apex Court had an occasion to go into the validity of the agreements entered into under these provisions and their enforceability in the case of UNION OF INDIA AND ANOTHER VS. AZADI BACHAO ANDOLAN AND ANOTHER reported in 263 ITR 706. Dealing with the purpose of provisions for avoidance of double taxation, the Supreme Court at page

THE COMMISSIONER vs. M/S VIJAYA BANK

Bench: ALOK ARADHE,H.T. NARENDRA PRASAD

36(vii-a) 5 of the Act. The Assessing Officer disallowed the depreciation claimed on securities classified as ‘Held to Maturity’ and further held that the assessee had earned aggregate sum of Rs.68,65,73,177/-, which is exempt under various sub-Sections of Section 10 of the Act and disallowed the aforesaid amount in terms of Section

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

In the result, the appeals are partly allowed

Bench: B.MANOHAR,DILIP B.BHOSALE

vii) of sub-Section 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

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

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

STATE BANK OF MYSORE vs. THE ADDITIONAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX

Bench: K.S.MUDAGAL,H.G.RAMESH

section 36(1)(vii) and therefore the same has to be considered for disallowance under Section 41(1). Therefore, as far as the finding

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

THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX vs. M/S.MILLENNIA DEVELOPERS (P) LTD

Bench: The Hon'Ble Mr. Justice Ravi Malimath

36. (1) The deductions provided for in the following clauses shall be allowed in respect of 13 the matters dealt with therein, in computing the income referred to in section 28- (i) the amount of any premium paid in respect of issuance against risk of damage or destruction of stocks or stores used for the purposes of the business

THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX vs. M/S.MILLENNIA DEVELOPERS (P) LTD

Bench: The Hon'Ble Mr. Justice Ravi Malimath

36. (1) The deductions provided for in the following clauses shall be allowed in respect of 13 the matters dealt with therein, in computing the income referred to in section 28- (i) the amount of any premium paid in respect of issuance against risk of damage or destruction of stocks or stores used for the purposes of the business

M/S BIG BAGS INTERNATIONAL (P) LTD vs. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX

In the result, the order of the tribunal to the

Bench: ALOK ARADHE,H.T. NARENDRA PRASAD

disallowance of bad debts of Rs.3,33,079,971/- claimed by the assessee claimed 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

vii) of the Act and hence provisions of Section 41(1)/41(4) of the Act are not attracted on a subsequent recovery of the 3 written off debt, when the provision created under Section 36(1)(viia) of the Act is allowed as a deduction and recorded a perverse finding? (ii) Whether the Appellate Authorities were correct in holding

THE PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER vs. M/S OBULAPURAM MINING

Bench: K.SOMASHEKAR,UMESH M ADIGA

VII.—The provisions of this section shall apply to a proceeding for the execution of a decree and references in this section to any suit, issue or former suit shall be construed as references, respectively, to a proceeding for the execution of the decree, question arising in such proceeding and a former proceeding for the execution of that decree. Explanation

PR. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-5 vs. M/S. PUMA SPORTS INDIA P., LTD.,

The appeal stands dismissed

Bench: SATISH CHANDRA SHARMA,V SRISHANANDA

36,680/-. The assessing authority passed an order under Section 143(3) read with Section 144(C)(13) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as ‘Act’) by making transfer pricing adjustment for Rs.4,16,65,106/- on the basis of the order passed under Section 92CA of the Act dated 24.10.2016. The assessing authority also made other

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

disallowed as it was not meant for management of construction, but on other expenses, such as advertisement, sales promotion etc. Therefore, the income had to be assessed under the head income from other sources. The Tribunal held that the income had to be assessed as business income and the assessee could not have received a sum of Rs.78.25 lakh without

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

disallowed as it was not meant for management of construction, but on other expenses, such as advertisement, sales promotion etc. Therefore, the income had to be assessed under the head income from other sources. The Tribunal held that the income had to be assessed as business income and the assessee could not have received a sum of Rs.78.25 lakh without