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 COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX vs. M/S WIPRO LTD

In the result, the appeals are partly allowed

Bench: B.MANOHAR,DILIP B.BHOSALE

b) Even if new Industrial Unit is not established, it has modernized the existing unit and if new plant 27 and machineries are erected whether the assessee is entitled to claim deduction under Section 80HH and 80 I, (c) If the assessee had purchased the machinery in the earlier assessment year and erected the same, whether the assessee can claim

SMT SAIRA BANU vs. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX

Bench: ARAVIND KUMAR,VINEET SARAN

B’ MAIN LIC QUARTERS JEEVANBHIMANAGAR BANGALORE-560 075. …APPELLANT (BY SRI A.SHANKAR AND SRI M.LAVA, ADVs.,) AND THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE-7(1) KENDRIYA SADAN KORAMANGALA BANGALORE-560 034. ...RESPONDENT (BY SRI K.V.ARAVIND, ADV.,) THIS ITA IS FILED UNDER SEC.260-A OF INCOME TAX ACT 1961, ARISING OUT OF ORDER DATED: 27.02.2009 PASSED IN ITA NO.957/BNG/2008

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

40a(ia) and 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 PR COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX vs. SHRI.M ABDUL ZAHID

Bench: KRISHNA S.DIXIT,PRADEEP SINGH YERUR

b) Section 37 is in the nature of a residuary provision extending the allowance to items of business expenditure that are not covered by Sections 30 to 36 of the 1961 Act; the word ‘expenditure’ primarily denotes the idea of ‘spending’ or ‘paying out or away’; it is something which is gone irretrievably vide Indian Molasses

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

Bench: KRISHNA S.DIXIT,PRADEEP SINGH YERUR

b) Section 37 is in the nature of a residuary provision extending the allowance to items of business expenditure that are not covered by Sections 30 to 36 of the 1961 Act; the word ‘expenditure’ primarily denotes the idea of ‘spending’ or ‘paying out or away’; it is something which is gone irretrievably vide Indian Molasses

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

Bench: KRISHNA S.DIXIT,PRADEEP SINGH YERUR

b) Section 37 is in the nature of a residuary provision extending the allowance to items of business expenditure that are not covered by Sections 30 to 36 of the 1961 Act; the word ‘expenditure’ primarily denotes the idea of ‘spending’ or ‘paying out or away’; it is something which is gone irretrievably vide Indian Molasses

PR COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX- 4 vs. M/S JUPITER

Appeal is allowed in part accordingly

Bench: P.S.DINESH KUMAR,C.M. POONACHA

40A(2) of the Act alternatively under Section 37 of the Act even when the assessee has not furnished a single evidence to prove that exact services which would be provided by the sister concerns i.e., Hindusthan Infrastructure Project and Engineering Limited, Vectra Stock and Securities Private Limited?" 2. Shri. E.I. Sanmathi, learned Standing Counsel for the Revenue prays

COMMISSIONER OF INCOME vs. SHRI G BALRAJ, PWD

In the result, question No

Bench: S.N.SATYANARAYANA,JAYANT PATEL

2. Since this matter was admitted, the other matters of the present group are admitted. At the time of admission, the questions are differently framed but considering the facts and circumstances of the case, it appears to us that the above referred question would remain as common in all the matters and additionally one more question can to be formulated

COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX vs. M/S SWADESHI INTERNATIONALS

The appeal is disposed off

Bench: The Hon'Ble Mr. Justice Ravi Malimath

40A(2)(b) of the Income Tax Act? 4. Learned counsel for the appellant contends that yet another question of law arises for consideration, which reads as follows: Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was right in allowing foreign travel expenses when the assessee has not established that such expenditure was incurred exclusively

THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX vs. M/S MANDOVI MOTORS PVT., LTD.,

Appeal stands disposed of by answering the

Bench: B.MANOHAR,VINEET SARAN

disallowance of rent paid to related at a higher rate contrary to Section 40A(2)(b) of the Act? 3 ii) Whether

M/S TOYOTA KIRLOSKAR MOTOR P LTD vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER

In the result, the appeal is allowed

Bench: ALOK ARADHE,M.G.S. KAMAL

disallowances made under Section 40a(i) and (ia) of the Act. The assessee thereupon furnished the information vide communication dated 12.08.2013. 4. The Assessing Officer initiated the proceeding under Section 201 and 201(1A) of the Act and treated the assessee as assessee in default in respect of the 6 amount made in provision, which was reversed / un- utilized

THE PR COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX vs. ADC INDIA COMMUNICATIONS LTD

The appeal is disposed of with liberty as prayed for by the learned

Bench: S.G.PANDIT,C.M. POONACHA

B NO.8512 PEENYA INDUSTRIAL AREA BENGALURU-560058 PAN-AAACK6553H …RESPONDENT (BY SRI. NIKHILESH RAO M.,ADVOCATE) THIS ITA / INCOME TAX APPEAL IS FILED UNDER SEC.260-A OF INCOME TAX ACT 1961, PRAYING TO FORMULATE THE SUBSTANTIAL QUESTIONS OF LAW STATED THEREIN, ALLOW THE APPEAL AND SET ASIDE THE ORDERS PASSED Digitally signed by BHARATHI S Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2

THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, vs. M/S BAHUBALI NEMINATH MUTTIN,

The appeals are dismissed

Bench: ANAND BYRAREDDY,RAGHVENDRA S.CHAUHAN

Disallowance under Section 40A (3) of the I.T. Act being undisclosed income Rs.24,216/- (v) Gross profit on suppressed sales being undisclosed income at Rs.19,45,509/- (vi) Addition on account of cessation of liability under Section 41 (1) of the I.T. Act at Rs.2,37,818/-. 3. The assessee had filed an appeal before the Commissioner of Income

COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX III vs. M/S SKILL TECH ENGINEERS & CONTRACTORS PVT LTD

Appeal stands dismissed

Bench: B.MANOHAR,N.KUMAR

B’ Bench, Bangalore as sought for in this appeal. - 2 - This I.T.A. coming on for orders, this day, N.Kumar J., delivered the following: JUDGMENT This appeal is preferred by the Revenue against the order of the Tribunal where additions made on account of the disallowance under Section 40a

COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX vs. M/S CANARA HOTEL

Appeal stands dismissed

Bench: RAVI MALIMATH,N.KUMAR

B’ Bench, Bangalore as sought for in this appeal. - 2 - This I.T.A. coming on for orders, this day, N.Kumar J., delivered the following: JUDGMENT This appeal is preferred by the Revenue against the order of the Tribunal where additions made on account of the disallowance under Section 40a

SHRI.ABDULWAHAB ABDULRAZAK MULLA vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER

Bench: The Hon’Ble Mrs. Justice B.V. Nagarathna

2 THIS WRIT PETITON IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO DIRECT THE 2ND RESPONDENT TO DISPOSE THE PENDING APPEAL BY PROPERLY CONSIDERING THE PROVISIONS OF SEC. 40A(3) OF INCOME TAX ACT WHERE ONLY CASH PAYMENTS CLAIMED AS EXPENDITURE IS DISALLOWABLE AND OTHERWISE NOT APPLICABLE AS URGED IN VIDE ANNEXURE-'F' DATED