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

The appeals are dismissed

Bench: SATISH CHANDRA SHARMA,SURAJ GOVINDARAJ

disallowed under Section 43- B which, as stated above, was inserted with effect from 1st April, 1984. It is also relevant to note that the first proviso which came into force with effect from 1st April, 1988 was not on the statute book when the assessments were made in the case of Allied Motors (P) Limited (supra). However, the Assessee

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

Disallowance of certain fee, charge, etc. in the case of State Government Undertakings: 12.1 The provisions of Section 40 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 before its amendment by the Act, specifies the amounts which shall not be deducted in computing the income chargeable under the head “Profits and gains of business or profession”. The non-deductible expense under

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 of interest on advance for capital goods and ESI contributions under Section 36(1)(va) of the Act to the extent of Rs.22,42

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

PR.COMMISSIONER OF INCOMETAX-2 vs. M/S.EYGBS (INDIA) PVT LTD

Bench: CHIEF JUSTICE,C M JOSHI

42,179 7. The AO had denied the exemption under Section 10AA on the TP pricing adjustment made pursuant to the APA. The AO reasoned that the assessee had declared the TP adjustments in anticipation of such TP adjustments by the TPA and to avoid the rigour of Section 92C(4) of the Act. The AO further observed that

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

disallowed the deduction claimed by the assessee under Section 35(2AB) of the Act incurred by assessee in a sum of ` 48,41,82,071/- as against the total deduction of ` 89,35,48,193/- claimed by the assessee under Section 35(2AB) of the Act. 41 26. A perusal of the report submitted by the prescribed authority

THE PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER vs. M/S OBULAPURAM MINING

Bench: K.SOMASHEKAR,UMESH M ADIGA

Disallowance of Expenses under Explanation to section 37(1) and in respect of third issue i.e., addition made on account of sale of Land, the ITAT set-aside the order of CIT (A) on that issue and restored the matter to A.O. for a fresh decision with the same directions as were given by the tribunal

SHRI. SHANKARLAL GILADA vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER,

Bench: G.NARENDAR,M.NAGAPRASANNA

42. There is no quarrel in assigning this meaning to Section 14-A of the Act. In fact, all the High Courts, whether it is the Delhi High Court on the one hand or the Punjab and Haryana High Court on the other hand, have agreed in providing this interpretation to Section 14-A of the Act. The entire dispute

GMR INFRASTRUCTURE LIMITED vs. THE DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX

In the result, we do not find any merit in the appeal

Bench: ALOK ARADHE,HEMANT CHANDANGOUDAR

42 YEARS. ... APPELLANT (BY SRI. BALRAM R. RAO, ADV.,) AND: THE DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX CENTRAL CIRCLE-2(2) 3RD FLOOR, C.R. BUILDING QUEENS ROAD, BANGALORE-560001. ... RESPONDENT (BY SRI. K.V. ARAVIND, ADV.,) - - - THIS I.T.A. IS FILED UNDER SECTION 260-A OF I.T.ACT, 1961 ARISING OUT OF ORDER DATED 28.07.2017 PASSED IN ITA NO.1895/BANG/2016, FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR

THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX vs. M/S QUEST GLOBAL ENGINEERING SERVICES PVT. LTD.,

In the result, we don to find any

Bench: ALOK ARADHE,R. NATARAJ

disallowance under Section 14A of the Act, the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) upheld the order of the Assessing Officer. In the result, the appeal preferred by the assessee was partly allowed. The assessee as well as the revenue filed appeals before the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal against the order of Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals). The Tribunal

THE PR COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIT(A) vs. M/S DELHI INTERNATIONAL AIRPORT PVT LTD

In the result, we don to find any

Bench: SATISH CHANDRA SHARMA,R. NATARAJ

42 of 1956) carried out in a recognised stock exchange; [or] (e) an eligible transaction in respect of trading in commodity derivatives carried out in a recognised association, which is chargeable to commodities transaction tax under Chapter VII of the Finance Act, 2013 (17 of 2013), shall not be deemed to be a speculative transaction. Section 43AA: Subject

PR. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-5 vs. M/S. PUMA SPORTS INDIA P., LTD.,

The appeal stands dismissed

Bench: SATISH CHANDRA SHARMA,V SRISHANANDA

disallowance made under Section 40(a)(1) of the Act for the sum of 5 Rs.7,29,13,934/- by holding that the income of the non-residents by way of commission cannot be considered as accrued or arisen or deemed to accrue or arise in India as the services of such agents were rendered or utilized outside India

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. 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

PR COMMISSIONER OF vs. M/S WIPRO LIMITED

In the result, the appeal is disposed of in terms

Bench: ALOK ARADHE,H.T. NARENDRA PRASAD

42,83,297/-. Initially, a draft order of assessment was passed. The assessee thereupon filed objections before Dispute Resolution Panel, which upheld the order of the Assessing Officer by an order dated 17.09.2012. On the basis of directions issued by before Dispute Resolution Panel, the Assessing Officer passed a final order of assessment on 26.10.2012. The assessee thereupon filed

THE PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER vs. M/S OBULAPURAM MINING

Bench: K.SOMASHEKAR,UMESH M ADIGA

42 Explanation.—The dismissal of a complaint, or the discharge of the accused, is not an acquittal for the purposes of this section” 38.Whereas, it is relevant to refer Article 20 of the Constitution of India, which reads as under: “20. Protection in respect of conviction for offences.— (1) No person shall be convicted of any offense except for violation