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 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

THE PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER vs. M/S OBULAPURAM MINING

Bench: K.SOMASHEKAR,UMESH M ADIGA

1) was attracted to the case of the Assessee/respondent. It is further contended that the Tribunal has grossly erred in not appreciating that as per the provisions of Section 37 of the Act, the expenditure incurred on illegal business is not an allowable expenditure and as such considering the facts of the case the assessing authority has rightly disallowed

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

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

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

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

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

Bench: N.KUMAR,RATHNAKALA

1] on 26.11.2001 which was received by the assessee on the same day. The assessee had claimed disallowance under section 14A of the Act in a sum of Rs.16,50,00,000/-. The assessee had claimed the following income as exempt under section 10 of the Act. - 6 - [a] Dividends u/s. 10[33] Rs. 52,00,27,446/- [b] Interest

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

The appeals are disposed of

Bench: ALOK ARADHE,RAVI V HOSMANI

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 of RS.1,03,53,095/- along with other additions/disallowance in computation of regular income/book profit. It was held that as per section 36(1)(viia

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

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

1) of the Act. After clarification called for and on discussion with the assessee’s representative, draft assessment order dated 27.03.2013 came to be forwarded to the assessee wherein the income was proposed as against the loss returned in the return of income. On receipt of the draft assessment order, assessee filed its objections before the Dispute Resolution Panel

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 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

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

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

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 the rigor