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

The appeal is disposed of

Bench: ALOK ARADHE,H.T. NARENDRA PRASAD

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 of the Act and the notional presumption of cash payments having been made, disallowance under Section 40A

SMT SAIRA BANU vs. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX

Bench: ARAVIND KUMAR,VINEET SARAN

Section 40A(3)? iii. Whether the Tribunal was justified in law in holding that disallowance has to be made 4 under

THE PR. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIT (A) vs. M/S. MANIPAL HEALTH SYSTEMS PVT. LTD.,

Appeal is dismissed

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

disallowance made under section 40A(2) of the Act by holding that the assessing authority has not doubted the payment nor it is held as excessive even though in terms of section 40A(2) only "legitimate needs of the business" is allowable as 1Income Tax Appellate Tribunal I.T.A No.817/2018 3

M/S. KESARVAL BEVERAGES LTD vs. THE DEPUTY COMMISSISONER OF

The appeal is dismissed

Bench: N.KUMAR,RATHNAKALA

3 - authority passed an order adverse to the assessee. He disallowed the claim of the assessee. Aggrieved by the said order, the assessee preferred an appeal. The appellate authority allowed 10% on the expenditure incurred as corporate management division and the balance was disallowed under Section 40A

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

Bench: KRISHNA S.DIXIT,PRADEEP SINGH YERUR

3) r/w Section 153A disallowed purchases/expenditures in terms of Section 37(1); 7 despite notice the assessee failed to explain as to why certain purchases should not be treated as having been made in violation of the provisions of Section 40A

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

Bench: KRISHNA S.DIXIT,PRADEEP SINGH YERUR

3) r/w Section 153A disallowed purchases/expenditures in terms of Section 37(1); 7 despite notice the assessee failed to explain as to why certain purchases should not be treated as having been made in violation of the provisions of Section 40A

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

Bench: KRISHNA S.DIXIT,PRADEEP SINGH YERUR

3) r/w Section 153A disallowed purchases/expenditures in terms of Section 37(1); 7 despite notice the assessee failed to explain as to why certain purchases should not be treated as having been made in violation of the provisions of Section 40A

COMMISSIONER OF INCOME vs. SHRI G BALRAJ, PWD

In the result, question No

Bench: S.N.SATYANARAYANA,JAYANT PATEL

disallowance under section 40(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961, it was held that the payment made to sub-contractors have not been claimed as a revenue expenditure and the appellant is merely acting as a conduit for 16 channelizing the contract amount received from the Govt. departments to the sub- contractors, who have actually spent the amounts

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

In the result, the appeals are partly allowed

Bench: B.MANOHAR,DILIP B.BHOSALE

3,19,766 incurred by the assessee in dismantling and shifting the factory from Sitalpur and erecting the factory and fitting the machinery at Garaul was expenditure of a capital nature and not revenue expenditure within the meaning of Section 10(2)(xv) of the I.T.Act? in paragraph three of the judgment observed thus: 20 “3.Considering the matter apart from

THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX vs. M/S MOOKAMBIKA DEVELOPERS

The appeals stand allowed to the extent as indicated above, and the matter is

Bench: VINEET SARAN,A.V.CHANDRASHEKARA

3) of the Act. 2. Challenging the order of the Appellate Commissioner confirming the validity of reopening for the assessment under Section 148 of the Act, the assessee preferred an appeal before the Tribunal. The Revenue also preferred a separate appeal against the order of the Appellate Commissioner contending that the disallowance made by the Appellate Commissioner under Section 40A

PR COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX vs. M/S FORTUNA PROJECTS

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

3. Whether, on facts and circumstances of the case, the ITAT is justified in holding that the question of disallowance under Section 40A

TEKTRONIX (INDIA) PRIVATE LIMITED

In the result, the appeal

Bench: SURAJ GOVINDARAJ

section 40A(3) is not applicable. The disallowance u/s 40A(3) is not possible. But again the issue would be from

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

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

Appeal is allowed in part accordingly

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

3. Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal is right in setting aside the disallowance of Rs.1,45,83,467/- made under Section 36(1)(ii) of the Act even when the assessee had failed to prove the end use of loan in the hands of the sister concern as held

THE PR COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX vs. M/S BHARAT INFRA TECH (P) LTD.,

The appeals are dismissed

Bench: N S SANJAY GOWDA,S SUNIL DUTT YADAV

SECTION 260A OF THE INCOME TAX ACT, 1961, PRAYING TO: (I) FORMULATE THE SUBSTANTIAL QUESTIONS OF LAW STATED ABOVE; (II) ALLOW THE APPEAL AND SET ASIDE THE ORDERS PASSED BY THE INCOME-TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, BENGALURU IN I.T.A. NO.1442/BANG/2014 DATED 19.01.2018 VIDE ANNEXURE-C CONFIRMING THE ORDER OF THE APPELLATE COMMISSIONER AND CONFIRM THE ORDER PASSED BY THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER

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

TIMES VPL LIMITED vs. THE COMMISSIONR OF INCOME TAX

In the result, the order passed by the

Bench: ALOK ARADHE,P.G.M.PATIL

3 SCC 389, the Supreme Court has held 11 that the main object in a contract of sale is the transfer of property and delivery of possession of the property, whereas the main object in a contract for work is not the transfer of the property, but it is one for work and labour. In the instant case, appellant company