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

7 company through a colorable device termed as service agreement. The AO has clearly made no efforts to demonstrate as to why payment made is excessive and unreasonable having regard to the market value of the services for which such payment was made. Thus, the disallowance made under Section 40A

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

The appeal is disposed of

Bench: ALOK ARADHE,H.T. NARENDRA PRASAD

disallowing the business expenditure under Section 37(1) of the Act and passed an order under Section 153A read with Section 143(3) of the Act on 31.12.2007. 3. The assessee filed an appeal before the 5 Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals). The Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) by an order dated 30.03.2010 held that transportation expenses to the extent

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

The appeal is dismissed

Bench: N.KUMAR,RATHNAKALA

disallowance of the claim. It was held that the expenses incurred is nothing but an business expenditure, on the basis of the material available on - 4 - record. However, the matter was remanded to the Tribunal to consider as to whether such expenditure incurred was reasonable or unreasonable in terms of Section of 40A(2) of the Act. 3. With regard

SMT SAIRA BANU vs. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX

Bench: ARAVIND KUMAR,VINEET SARAN

disallowed 20% of 6 sale consideration by invoking Section 40A(3) of the Act. In support of his contention, learned counsel for the appellant has relied on the following decisions: i. Tolaram Daga –vs- Commissioner of Income Tax, Assam ([1965 ] 57 ITR (Sh.N.) 9) / [1966] Vol.LIX ITR 632 ii. Attar Singh Gurmukh Singh –vs- Income Tax Officer, Ludhiana

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

In the result, the appeals are partly allowed

Bench: B.MANOHAR,DILIP B.BHOSALE

40A(9) of the Act? 7 5. In ITA 133/07, the following two substantial questions of law arise for our consideration: A-9. Whether the Tribunal was correct in holding that the stock transfers made to the new industrial undertaking at Amalnar for manufacture of fatty acid and glycerin plant should be taken at market price

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

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

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

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. ADC INDIA COMMUNICATIONS LTD

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

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

7. Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal’s order can be said as perverse in nature in setting aside disallowance made under section 40A

COMMISSIONER OF INCOME vs. SHRI G BALRAJ, PWD

In the result, question No

Bench: S.N.SATYANARAYANA,JAYANT PATEL

7. The other grievance of the revenue is that the CIT(A) has granted relief to the assesse on the ground that when the assessee has not claimed the payment as expenditure, the provisions of section 40a(ia) could not be applied and the Assessing Officer could not have made the disallowance

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

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

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

disallowance under Section 40A(3) and 40(a)(ia) of the Income - Tax does not arise as there was no claim for deduction of expenses? 2. Heard Sri E.I. Sanmathi, learned Advocate for the Revenue. 3. Despite service, there is no representation on behalf of the Assessee. Hence, on the last date of hearing, we had requested Sri A.Shankar, learned

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

40A(3) of the Act was wrong and the disallowance to the extent of Rs.53,00,000/- as made by the Assessing Officer ought to have been maintained. By the impugned order dated 27.3.2014, the 4 Tribunal held that the reopening of the assessment was bad in law as, according to the Tribunal, unless the Assessing Officer has made

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

In the result, this appeal is dismissed

Bench: P.S.DINESH KUMAR,T.G. SHIVASHANKARE GOWDA

40A(2) only “legitimate needs of the business” is allowable as expenditure and, as such, the assessing authority rightly disallowed it? 2. Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal is right in law in holding that the assessee has rightly transferred the hospital as a going concern and took 1 Income Tax Appellate Tribunal

TIMES VPL LIMITED vs. THE COMMISSIONR OF INCOME TAX

In the result, the order passed by the

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

7. Being aggrieved, an appeal was preferred by the assessee before the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Bengaluru. The Tribunal however vide order dated 31.01.2013 upheld the validity of the order passed by the Commissioner of Income Tax. In the aforesaid factual background, this appeal has been filed. 8. Learned senior counsel for the assessee while inviting the attention of this

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 where the assessee has brought this fund. It is claiming that since he has surrendered a sum of Rs.50.00 lakhs out of the expenditure that income should be considered as available in his hands, which can be used

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