M/S WIPRO LIMITED vs. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX

The appeals stand disposed of, accordingly

Bench: N.KUMAR,B.SREENIVASE GOWDA

41. But the said meaning of the word can be imported for Section 90(1)(a). As per Section 43(2) “paid” means actually paid or incurred according to the method of computing upon the basis on which the profit or gains are computed under the - 31 - head profit and gains of business or profession. In respect of the income

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

PR. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX vs. SMT. G. LAKSHMI ARUNA

Bench: K.SOMASHEKAR,UMESH M ADIGA

Disallowed (Rs.) (I) (II) (III) 2009-10 28,76,23,325 9,95,82,217 2010-11 2,29,05,056 1,46,91,363 Of these, the Assessing Officer found that to the extent given in column 3 above, the appellant was unable to substantiate the said expense claimed before the Assessing Officer. 16. In respect of assessment

PR. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX vs. SHRI. GALI JANARDHANA REDDY

Bench: K.SOMASHEKAR,UMESH M ADIGA

disallowed(Rs) (I) (II) (III) 2009-10 28,76,23,325 9,95,82,217 2010-11 2,29,05,056 1,46,91,363 15. Of these the assessing officer found that to the extent given in column (III) above, the appellant was unable to substantiate the said expenses claimed before the assessing officer. 16.In respect of assessment

COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-III vs. M/S SYNDICATE BANK

The appeals are disposed of

Bench: ALOK ARADHE,RAVI V HOSMANI

disallowing an amount of Rs.192,53,21,426/- on reversal of interest pertaining to earlier years as deduction out of current years income and added back to interest on zero coupon bonds to the tune of RS.1,03,53,095/- along with other additions/disallowance in computation of regular income/book profit. It was held that as per section 36(1)(viia

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

41,82,071/- was disallowed and same came to be added to the income of assessee-company. Further, a sum of `2,63,68,301/- claimed by the assessee as 100% deduction under Section 35(1

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 PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER vs. M/S OBULAPURAM MINING

Bench: K.SOMASHEKAR,UMESH M ADIGA

disallowed. The jurisdictional error committed is the assessing officer’s jurisdiction is Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, 35 Central Circle-1(3), Bengaluru, whereas the jurisdictional assessing officer of the transporters is located in Andhra Pradesh. 31.Admittedly, as stated above the evidence of transporters recorded by the assessing officer outside the jurisdiction of Bengaluru has not been taken on record

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

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

1)(vii) and therefore the same has to be considered for disallowance under Section 41(1). Therefore, as far as the finding

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

In the result, the appeals are partly allowed

Bench: B.MANOHAR,DILIP B.BHOSALE

disallowed the deduction of the donation made to Khandesh Education Society holding it as a contribution contemplated by Section 40A(9) of the Act. This view was confirmed by the appellate authority. The Tribunal, however, set aside the findings recorded by the authorities below on this question holding that the donation was made by the assessee to the Khandesh Education

THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX vs. M/S. STATE BANK OF MYSORE

In the result, the order passed by the tribunal

Bench: ALOK ARADHE,H.T. NARENDRA PRASAD

1) or Section 41(4) of the Act. It was further held that disallowance under Section 14A of the Act towards

THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX vs. M/S. IBC KNOWLEDGE PARK PVT. LTD.,

In the result, the appeals filed by the Revenue

Bench: B.V.NAGARATHNA,JAYANT PATEL

disallowed as it was not meant for management of construction, but on other expenses, such as advertisement, sales promotion etc. Therefore, the income had to be assessed under the head income from other sources. The Tribunal held that the income had to be assessed as business income and the assessee could not have received a sum of Rs.78.25 lakh without

THE COMMISIONER OF INCOME-TAX vs. M/S IBC KNOWLEDGE PARK PVT LTD

In the result, the appeals filed by the Revenue

Bench: B.V.NAGARATHNA,JAYANT PATEL

disallowed as it was not meant for management of construction, but on other expenses, such as advertisement, sales promotion etc. Therefore, the income had to be assessed under the head income from other sources. The Tribunal held that the income had to be assessed as business income and the assessee could not have received a sum of Rs.78.25 lakh without

THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX vs. M/S. IBC KNOWLEDGE PARK PVT. LTD.,

In the result, the appeals filed by the Revenue

Bench: B.V.NAGARATHNA,JAYANT PATEL

disallowed as it was not meant for management of construction, but on other expenses, such as advertisement, sales promotion etc. Therefore, the income had to be assessed under the head income from other sources. The Tribunal held that the income had to be assessed as business income and the assessee could not have received a sum of Rs.78.25 lakh without

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 143(1

M/S J K INDUSTRIES LTD vs. THE JOINT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX

In the result, all questions are answered against the

Bench: D.V.SHYLENDRA KUMAR,B.SREENIVASE GOWDA

disallowed as notional and not real, for the purpose of computation under Section 80HHC of the Act, the tribunal not having taken a contrary view, it is to be deemed as rejected. 17. Be that as it may, what we find is that in respect of the first item of incentive viz., premium sale exim scrips amount as claimed