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

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

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

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

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

The appeals are disposed of

Bench: ALOK ARADHE,RAVI V HOSMANI

2) / 142(1) of the Act were issued to the Assessee an order under Section 143(3) of the Act was passed on 28.02.2005 disallowing an amount of Rs.192,53,21,426/- on reversal of interest pertaining to earlier years as deduction out of current years income and added back to interest on zero coupon bonds to the tune

M/S FIDELITY BUSINESS SERVICES INDIA PVT LTD vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX

Bench: S.SUJATHA,VINEET KOTHARI

36. He also drew our attention to Section 46-A of the Act which provides for “Levy of capital gains on purchase by the Company of its own shares or other specified securities”. The said provision is also quoted below for ready reference:- “Section 46A: Where a shareholder or a holder of other specified securities receives Date of Judgment

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-a) had not been complied with by the assessee. (4) Whether the Tribunal was correct in holding that the Assessing Officer had correctly disallowed the claim made by the assessee regarding entertainment expenditure of Rs.16,21,016/- on the basis that 50% should be treated a expenditure relating to staff and cannot be brought 4 under

M/S J K CEMENT WORKS vs. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA

Bench: H.B.PRABHAKARA SASTRY,VINEET KOTHARI

disallowed in the hands of the petitioner assessee. 14. We are fully fortified in our view by the recent decision of another Division Bench of this Court in the case of Hindustan Uniliver Limited Vs. State of Karnataka [2016] 90 VST 236 (Karn), wherein the Division Bench of this Court, relying upon the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court

THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX vs. PRAVEEN V DODDANAVAR

Bench: SREENIVAS HARISH KUMAR,VINEET KOTHARI

disallowed in the hands of the petitioner assessee. 14. We are fully fortified in our view by the recent decision of another Division Bench of this Court in the case of Hindustan Uniliver Limited Vs. State of Karnataka [2016] 90 VST 236 (Karn), wherein the Division Bench of this Court, relying upon the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court

THE BAILHONGAL URBAN COOPERATIVE BANK LTD vs. THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX

Bench: S.ABDUL NAZEER,P.S.DINESH KUMAR

disallowed in the hands of the petitioner assessee. 14. We are fully fortified in our view by the recent decision of another Division Bench of this Court in the case of Hindustan Uniliver Limited Vs. State of Karnataka [2016] 90 VST 236 (Karn), wherein the Division Bench of this Court, relying upon the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court

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

THE COMMISSIONER vs. M/S VIJAYA BANK

Bench: ALOK ARADHE,H.T. NARENDRA PRASAD

36(1)(viii) of the Act even though the assessee is not an eligible entity under the provisions of the Act prior to amendment w.e.f. 01.04.2008? 5. Whether on the facts and in the circumstances on the case, the Tribunal were right in law in deleting the disallowance made under section 14A of the Act?” 2

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

SYNDICATE BANK vs. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX

The appeal is allowed in

Bench: SATISH CHANDRA SHARMA,R. NATARAJ

2. The assessee filed its return of income for the assessment year 2011-12 and claimed deduction of a sum of Rs.9,18,82,49,133/- under Section 36 (1)(viia) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’ 3 for short). The deduction claimed comprised of a sum of Rs.8,10,96,43,882/- being

THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX vs. M/S QUEST GLOBAL ENGINEERING SERVICES PVT. LTD.,

In the result, we don to find any

Bench: ALOK ARADHE,R. NATARAJ

disallowance under Section 14A of the Act, the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) upheld the order of the Assessing Officer. In the result, the appeal preferred by the assessee was partly allowed. The assessee as well as the revenue filed appeals before the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal against the order of Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals). The Tribunal

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

Bench: CHIEF JUSTICE,C M JOSHI

2. The Revenue have filed the present appeals under Section 260A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 [the Act], impugning a common order dated 08.11.2024 [impugned order], passed by the learned Income Tax Appellate Tribunal [Tribunal] in ITA No.1367/Bang/2024 in respect of the Assessment Year [AY] 2015- 16 and in ITA No.1368/Bang/2024 in respect

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 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