M/S.M K AGROTECH PRIVATE LTD vs. THE ADDL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX

The appeal is allowed

Bench: The Hon'Ble Mr. Justice Ravi Malimath

9 material to hold that the purchases have not been made. However, the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) applied the provisions of Section 40A(3) of the Act and disallowed

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

40A(1) xxxxx (2) (a) Where the assessee incurs any expenditure in respect of which payment has been or is to be made to any person referred to in clause (b) of this sub-section, and the 2 [Assessing Officer] is of opinion that such expenditure is excessive or unreasonable having regard to the fair market value of the goods

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

The appeal is disposed of

Bench: ALOK ARADHE,H.T. NARENDRA PRASAD

Section 40A(3) is not applicable in case of the assessee as the firm has paid all payments through account payee crossed cheques only. It is further 9 submitted that disallowance

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

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. M/S JAY MINERALS

Bench: KRISHNA S.DIXIT,PRADEEP SINGH YERUR

40A(3); therefore, the Assessing Officer disallowed 100% of the purchases made from unregistered dealers. (c) The assessee took the matter in appeal, being aggrieved by the Assessment Orders; the Principal Commissioner of Income Tax favoured the appeals on the premise that in determining the profits of business, the expenses incurred have to be set off against the receipts from

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

Bench: KRISHNA S.DIXIT,PRADEEP SINGH YERUR

40A(3); therefore, the Assessing Officer disallowed 100% of the purchases made from unregistered dealers. (c) The assessee took the matter in appeal, being aggrieved by the Assessment Orders; the Principal Commissioner of Income Tax favoured the appeals on the premise that in determining the profits of business, the expenses incurred have to be set off against the receipts from

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

Bench: KRISHNA S.DIXIT,PRADEEP SINGH YERUR

40A(3); therefore, the Assessing Officer disallowed 100% of the purchases made from unregistered dealers. (c) The assessee took the matter in appeal, being aggrieved by the Assessment Orders; the Principal Commissioner of Income Tax favoured the appeals on the premise that in determining the profits of business, the expenses incurred have to be set off against the receipts from

COMMISSIONER OF INCOME vs. SHRI G BALRAJ, PWD

In the result, question No

Bench: S.N.SATYANARAYANA,JAYANT PATEL

disallowance and the resultant addition in the income was deleted. In the appeal before the Tribunal in ITA Nos.103-104/2011 it was found by the Tribunal at paras-6 to 9 as under: “6. Having heard both the parties and having considered the rival contentions, we find that the only dispute is whether the agreement between the assessee and Sri Bapuji

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

9(1)(vii) of the Act to an extent of `1,36,42,976 as assessee failed to deduct TDS on said payment which is towards fees on technical serves ignoring that conditions set out in said provisions were fully satisfied in case of assessee to make such disallowance? 7. Whether on the facts and in the circumstances

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

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 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

TIMES VPL LIMITED vs. THE COMMISSIONR OF INCOME TAX

In the result, the order passed by the

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

9 (2012) 208 TAXMAN 73 (Kar) as well as Circular No.13 of 2006 dated 13.12.2006 issued by the Central Board of Direct Taxes. 10. On the other hand, learned counsel for the Revenue has submitted that the Assessing Officer did not examine the issue involved in the instant case while passing the order of assessment. It is further submitted that

M/S WIPRO LIMITED vs. THE ADDITIONAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX,

In the result, the appeal is disposed of in terms of

Bench: ALOK ARADHE,H.T. NARENDRA PRASAD

disallow the deferred compensation claimed by appellant as the claim does not fall within the parameters of sec.36(1)(iv) & (v) r.w.s. 40A(9)? (iv) Whether the tribunal was right in excluding the computer software sales made to STP/SEZ units in India from "export turnover" for the purpose of computing deduction under Section

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