THE PR. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX vs. M/S. TE CONNECTIVITY INDIA PVT. LTD.,

Accordingly dispose of the appeal as allowed

Bench: ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE,S RACHAIAH

disallowance u/s 40(a)(ia) on the transactions discussed above. He shall give the assessee an opportunity to furnish necessary evidence to establish his claim and explain why the proposed additions be not made to income. The AO shall consider the facts, and the results of any enquiries made, as well as the explanation furnished by the assessee, and make

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

Section 35(2AB) in respect of Research and Development expenditure in a sum of ` 89,35,48,193/-, a sum of ` 48,41,82,071/- was disallowed

KARNATAKA STATE BEVERAGES CORPORTION LIMITED vs. THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX

Bench: The Hon’Ble Mr. Justice Anand Byrareddy Writ Petition No.12872 Of 2013 (T-It) Connected With Writ Petition No.14687 Of 2014 (T-It), Writ Petition No.15910 Of 2015 (T-It) & Writ Petition No.17514 Of 2015 (T-It) In W.P.No.12872 Of 2013 Between: Karnataka State Beverages Corporation Limited, Represented By It’S Executive Director (Finance), Sri. Shrikant B Vanahalli, Aged About 57 Years, No.78, Seethalakshmi Towers, Mission Road, Bangalore 560 027. …Petitioner

Section 143(3) of the Act for the assessment year 2012-13 wherein the Assessing Officer had disallowed the privilege fee of Rs.829,41

STATE BANK OF MYSORE vs. THE ADDITIONAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX

Bench: K.S.MUDAGAL,H.G.RAMESH

disallowance under Section 41(1). Therefore, as far as the finding of the Tribunal for the Assessment Year 2005-06, we do concur

THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX vs. TEXAS INSTRUMENTS INDIA PVT LTD

The appeals are dismissed

Bench: SATISH CHANDRA SHARMA,SURAJ GOVINDARAJ

41,570/- which was processed on 8.06.2011, determining the total income of the same amount. Returns were taken up for scrutiny after issuance of statutory notice under Section 143(2) on 14.09.2009. I.T.A. NO.141 OF 2020 c/w I.T.A. NO.151 OF 2020 4 2. The Assessee had claimed deduction of Rs.7,57,22,069/- under Section 80JJ(AA) of Income

COFFEEDAY GLOBAL LTD. vs. ADDITIONAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX

In the result, the orders dated 21

Bench: ALOK ARADHE,ASHOK S.KINAGI

disallowance of Rs.7,97,70,326/- as interest on capital attributable to 20 capital work in progress relying on proviso Section 36(1)(iii) of the Act. The assessee is in the business of manufacture and trade in coffee and allied products. It has more than 1000 coffee shops with brand name 'Café Coffee Day'. The assessee had capital work

PR. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX vs. M/S AMALGAMATED BEAN COFFEE TRADING CO LTD

In the result, the orders dated 21

Bench: ALOK ARADHE,ASHOK S.KINAGI

disallowance of Rs.7,97,70,326/- as interest on capital attributable to 20 capital work in progress relying on proviso Section 36(1)(iii) of the Act. The assessee is in the business of manufacture and trade in coffee and allied products. It has more than 1000 coffee shops with brand name 'Café Coffee Day'. The assessee had capital work

COFFEEDAY GLOBAL LTD. vs. ADDITIONAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX

In the result, the orders dated 21

Bench: ALOK ARADHE,ASHOK S.KINAGI

disallowance of Rs.7,97,70,326/- as interest on capital attributable to 20 capital work in progress relying on proviso Section 36(1)(iii) of the Act. The assessee is in the business of manufacture and trade in coffee and allied products. It has more than 1000 coffee shops with brand name 'Café Coffee Day'. The assessee had capital work

THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX vs. M/S CANARA BANK

Bench: ALOK ARADHE,H.T. NARENDRA PRASAD

disallow the claim of deduction? 2. Facts giving rise to filing of this appeal briefly stated are that the assessee is a banking company. The assessee filed return of income for Assessment Year 2007-08 on 29.10.2007 declaring total income of Rs.593,48,70,178/-. The return was processed under Section

M/S KHODAY INDIA LTD vs. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX

In the result, the orders passed by the Assessing

Bench: ALOK ARADHE,HEMANT CHANDANGOUDAR

disallowance under Section 14A of the Act read with Rule 8D of the Rules is called for. In support of aforesaid submissions, reliance has been placed on decisions in 'KODAGU DISTRICT CO-OPEARTIVE CENTRAL BANK LTD. VS. ACIT IN ITA NO.318/2016 DATED 19.01.2021, 'PCIT VS. STERLING DEVELOPERS P.LTD. IN ITA NO.685 OF 2015 DATED 04.02.2021 (KAR.), 'CIT S. QUEST GLOBAL

M/S. KARNATAKA INSTRADE CORPORATION LIMITED vs. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX

The appeal is allowed in part

Bench: B.MANOHAR,VINEET SARAN

41 of the Act, notwithstanding the fact that the assessee was not carrying on any business during the relevant assessment year, the provision contained in sub-Section (2) of Section 32 become applicable and consequently, 28 the set-off has to be given for unabsorbed depreciation allowances of previous year brought forward in terms of that provision

THE PR.COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIT(A) vs. M/S. ADVAITH MOTORS PVT LTD.,

Bench: S.SUJATHA,VINEET KOTHARI

disallowance under Rule-8D of the Rules r/w Section 14A of the Act cannot exceed the expenditure directly relatable to earn the exempted income in the form of ‘Dividend’ as computed in accordance with Rule-8D of the Rules. 5. The relevant portions of the following two judgments are quoted below for ready reference:- (i) Commissioner of Income

THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX vs. M/S. CHAITANYA PROPERTIES PVT LTD

Bench: S.SUJATHA,VINEET KOTHARI

disallowance of Rs.1,93,730 made by the Assessing Officer under Section 14A r/w. Rule 8D.” 4. The said controversy with regard to Section 14-A read with Rule 8D of the Rules has been decided by this Court in the following two judgments which are quoted below for ready reference. (i) Commissioner of Income Tax & Anr. Vs. Microlabs

THE PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER vs. M/S OBULAPURAM MINING

Bench: K.SOMASHEKAR,UMESH M ADIGA

Disallowance of expenses claimed under section 37(1) towards illegal mining. 387,76,69,992/- 4. Aggrieved by the above additions, the assessee preferred an appeal before the Tribunal against the additions made hereinabove, which came to be allowed. 5. It is stated in the appeal that during the assessment proceedings, it was observed that, M/s GLA Trading International

SHRI. SHANKARLAL GILADA vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER,

Bench: G.NARENDAR,M.NAGAPRASANNA

disallowance under Section 14A of the Act read with Rule 8D of Income Tax Rules, 1962, (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Rules’ for short) which resulted in assessing the income of the appellant at Rs.11,41

THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX vs. M/S AMCO POWER SYSTEMS LTD

Bench: B.MANOHAR,VINEET SARAN

disallowance of lease rentals paid by it to the extent of Rs.2,08,080/-. The Tribunal, however dismissed the appeal of the Revenue, and partly allowed the appeal of the respondent-assessee by allowing the benefit of set-off of brought forward losses, but did not give the benefit of lease rentals paid by the assessee. Challenging the said order

THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX vs. M/S AMCO POWER SYSTEMS LTD.,

Bench: B.MANOHAR,VINEET SARAN

disallowance of lease rentals paid by it to the extent of Rs.2,08,080/-. The Tribunal, however dismissed the appeal of the Revenue, and partly allowed the appeal of the respondent-assessee by allowing the benefit of set-off of brought forward losses, but did not give the benefit of lease rentals paid by the assessee. Challenging the said order

THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX vs. M/S AMCO POWER SYSTEMS LTD.,

Bench: B.MANOHAR,VINEET SARAN

disallowance of lease rentals paid by it to the extent of Rs.2,08,080/-. The Tribunal, however dismissed the appeal of the Revenue, and partly allowed the appeal of the respondent-assessee by allowing the benefit of set-off of brought forward losses, but did not give the benefit of lease rentals paid by the assessee. Challenging the said order

THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX vs. M/S AMCO POWER SYSTEMS LTD.,

Bench: B.MANOHAR,VINEET SARAN

disallowance of lease rentals paid by it to the extent of Rs.2,08,080/-. The Tribunal, however dismissed the appeal of the Revenue, and partly allowed the appeal of the respondent-assessee by allowing the benefit of set-off of brought forward losses, but did not give the benefit of lease rentals paid by the assessee. Challenging the said order