THE PR COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX vs. M/S MPHASIS LTD

The appeal is dismissed accordingly

Bench: SATISH CHANDRA SHARMA,V SRISHANANDA

disallowance of foreign exchange loss on forward contract. 13 15. Learned counsel for the revenue has argued before this Court that such loss is a notional and contingent and has to be treated as speculative loss in terms of Section 43(5) of the Income tax Act. He has also argued before this Court that the Tribunal without examining

SMT. PUNEETHA @ PUNEETHA B. A. vs. SRI. D. RAVI

The appeal is dismissed accordingly

Bench: R DEVDAS

disallowance of foreign exchange loss on forward contract. 13 15. Learned counsel for the revenue has argued before this Court that such loss is a notional and contingent and has to be treated as speculative loss in terms of Section 43(5) of the Income tax Act. He has also argued before this Court that the Tribunal without examining

MANGALORE REFINERY AND PETROCHEMICALS LTD vs. PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX

In the result, I pass the following:-

Bench: The Hon'Ble Mr.Justice S.R.Krishna Kumar

section 40(a)(i) of the IT Act 80,19,59,658 Disallowance of Depreciation 13,09,37,839 Disallowance

MANGALORE REFINERY AND PETROCHEMICALS LTD vs. PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX

In the result, I pass the following:-

Bench: The Hon'Ble Mr.Justice S.R.Krishna Kumar

section 40(a)(i) of the IT Act 80,19,59,658 Disallowance of Depreciation 13,09,37,839 Disallowance

M/S CANARA BANK BSCA SECTION vs. THE ASST COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE-11(2)

Bench: N.KUMAR,RATHNAKALA

disallowance under section 14A of the Act to 2% of - 7 - the gross receipts on account of dividends and interest which are exempt following earlier order of his own in the assessee’s case for the assessment year 1998-99. The said order was challenged before the Tribunal. The Tribunal confirmed the said order, in view of the fact that

HINDUSTAN AERONAUTICS LIMITED vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER

In the result, the order of the

Bench: ALOK ARADHE,H.T. NARENDRA PRASAD

disallowance of the claims of the assessee under Section 37 and Section 14A of the Act is hereby quashed. In the result

THE PR COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX vs. M/S HINDUSTAN AERONAUTICS LTD

In the result, the order of the

Bench: ALOK ARADHE,H.T. NARENDRA PRASAD

disallowance of the claims of the assessee under Section 37 and Section 14A of the Act is hereby quashed. In the result

KARNATAKA STATE BEVERAGES CORPORTION LIMITED vs. THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX

Bench: The Hon’Ble Mr. Justice Anand Byrareddy Writ Petition No.12872 Of 2013 (T-It) Connected With Writ Petition No.14687 Of 2014 (T-It), Writ Petition No.15910 Of 2015 (T-It) & Writ Petition No.17514 Of 2015 (T-It) In W.P.No.12872 Of 2013 Between: Karnataka State Beverages Corporation Limited, Represented By It’S Executive Director (Finance), Sri. Shrikant B Vanahalli, Aged About 57 Years, No.78, Seethalakshmi Towers, Mission Road, Bangalore 560 027. …Petitioner

37 of the IT Act would indicate that an expenditure to be allowed under this section should fit into the central theme of the section and the question was, of allowing or disallowing

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

In the result, the appeals are partly allowed

Bench: B.MANOHAR,DILIP B.BHOSALE

disallowed the claim of respondent-assessee, treating a sum of `14,396/- for the assessment year 1986-87, `1,32,315/- for the assessment year 1987-88 and `68,570/- for the assessment year 1992-93 as an expenditure under Section 37

THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX vs. M/S RAJMAHAL SILKS

The appeal is disposed of

Bench: ALOK ARADHE,H.T. NARENDRA PRASAD

disallowance made under Section 40A(3) can be only on the basis of profit and loss account and only on those expenditures claimed in terms of Section 28 to Section 37

PR. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX vs. M/S CHAMUNDI WINERY AND DISTILLERY

Bench: S.SUJATHA,VINEET KOTHARI

disallowed the said “Distributable Surplus” paid by the Respondent Assessee CHAMUNDI to DIAGEO under Date of Judgment 25-09-2018 I.T.A.No.155/2016 and connected matters The Pr. Commissioner of Income Tax & Ors. Vs. M/s. Chamundi Winery and Distillery 10/137 Section 37

THE PR. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (4) vs. M/S CHAMUNDI WINERY AND DISTILLERY

Bench: S.SUJATHA,VINEET KOTHARI

disallowed the said “Distributable Surplus” paid by the Respondent Assessee CHAMUNDI to DIAGEO under Date of Judgment 25-09-2018 I.T.A.No.155/2016 and connected matters The Pr. Commissioner of Income Tax & Ors. Vs. M/s. Chamundi Winery and Distillery 10/137 Section 37

THE PR COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, vs. M/S JAY MINERALS

Bench: KRISHNA S.DIXIT,PRADEEP SINGH YERUR

disallowed purchases/expenditures in terms of Section 37(1); 7 despite notice the assessee failed to explain as to why certain

THE PR COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX vs. SHRI.M ABDUL ZAHID

Bench: KRISHNA S.DIXIT,PRADEEP SINGH YERUR

disallowed purchases/expenditures in terms of Section 37(1); 7 despite notice the assessee failed to explain as to why certain

THE PR COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX vs. SHRI.M. ABDUL ZAHID

Bench: KRISHNA S.DIXIT,PRADEEP SINGH YERUR

disallowed purchases/expenditures in terms of Section 37(1); 7 despite notice the assessee failed to explain as to why certain

THE PR. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX vs. M/S. TE CONNECTIVITY INDIA PVT. LTD.,

Accordingly dispose of the appeal as allowed

Bench: ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE,S RACHAIAH

disallowance under Section 40(a)(ia) of the Act, so the finding of the PCIT that the Assessing Officer has not examined the issue in accordance with law and has not conducted necessary enquiries is incorrect. It was also the case of the respondent that as the Assessing Officer has taken a plausible view, the assessment order cannot be subjected

THE PR. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME -TAX vs. M/S KAWASAKI MICRO ELECTRONICS INC

The appeal is disposed of

Bench: ALOK ARADHE,H.T. NARENDRA PRASAD

disallowance. It is 4 submitted that consequences of failure to deduct tax at source either on expenditure under Section 32 or Section 37

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

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 the rigor of section 37