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

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 COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX vs. M/S WIPRO LTD

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

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

B’ had not been claimed as deduction. 26. On going through the letter dated 30/9/2006, the Tribunal did not find any infirmity in the order of the Appellate Commissioner in granting relief to the assessee. We do not find any infirmity in the order of the Tribunal. Accordingly, substantial question of law No.3 is answered against the Revenue. 27. Fourth

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

B’ had not been claimed as deduction. 26. On going through the letter dated 30/9/2006, the Tribunal did not find any infirmity in the order of the Appellate Commissioner in granting relief to the assessee. We do not find any infirmity in the order of the Tribunal. Accordingly, substantial question of law No.3 is answered against the Revenue. 27. Fourth

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

B’ had not been claimed as deduction. 26. On going through the letter dated 30/9/2006, the Tribunal did not find any infirmity in the order of the Appellate Commissioner in granting relief to the assessee. We do not find any infirmity in the order of the Tribunal. Accordingly, substantial question of law No.3 is answered against the Revenue. 27. Fourth

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 and in this section, unless the context otherwise requires— (1) "actual cost" means xxx section 47. (2) "paid" means actually xxx profession. (3) "plant" includes xxx fittings. (4)[(i) "scientific research" means any activities for the extension of knowledge in the fields of natural or applied science including agriculture, animal husbandry or fisheries;] (ii) references to expenditure incurred

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

COFFEEDAY GLOBAL LTD. vs. ADDITIONAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX

In the result, the orders dated 21

Bench: ALOK ARADHE,ASHOK S.KINAGI

b) and 80-IE(2)(ii) wherein the term 'expansion' is used and substantial 'expansion' is defined as increase in investment of plant 14 and machinery by a specified percentage out of book value of plant and machinery, whereas, under Section 35D(1)(ii) and proviso to Section 36(1)(iii) prior to its amendment used the word 'extension

COFFEEDAY GLOBAL LTD. vs. ADDITIONAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX

In the result, the orders dated 21

Bench: ALOK ARADHE,ASHOK S.KINAGI

b) and 80-IE(2)(ii) wherein the term 'expansion' is used and substantial 'expansion' is defined as increase in investment of plant 14 and machinery by a specified percentage out of book value of plant and machinery, whereas, under Section 35D(1)(ii) and proviso to Section 36(1)(iii) prior to its amendment used the word 'extension

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

b) and 80-IE(2)(ii) wherein the term 'expansion' is used and substantial 'expansion' is defined as increase in investment of plant 14 and machinery by a specified percentage out of book value of plant and machinery, whereas, under Section 35D(1)(ii) and proviso to Section 36(1)(iii) prior to its amendment used the word 'extension

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

THE PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER vs. M/S OBULAPURAM MINING

Bench: K.SOMASHEKAR,UMESH M ADIGA

b) that it must have been borrowed for the purpose of business, and (c) that the assessee must have paid interest on the said amount and claimed it as a deduction. It is to be noted that in Madhav Prasad's case (supra), reference was made to a decision of the Bombay High Court in CIT vs. Bombay Samachar

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

In the result, the appeals are partly allowed

Bench: B.MANOHAR,DILIP B.BHOSALE

b) Even if new Industrial Unit is not established, it has modernized the existing unit and if new plant 27 and machineries are erected whether the assessee is entitled to claim deduction under Section 80HH and 80 I, (c) If the assessee had purchased the machinery in the earlier assessment year and erected the same, whether the assessee can claim

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

b) or clause (c) of this sub- section shall be further increased by the amount which bears to ninety per cent of any sum referred to in clause (iiia) (not being profits on sale of a licence acquired from any other person), and clauses (iiib) and (iiic) of section 28, the same proportion as the export turnover bears

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