COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, vs. SHREE RENUKA SUGARS LTD.,

The Appeals are allowed

Bench: K.BHAKTHAVATSALA,B.SREENIVASE GOWDA

disallowing the claim for depreciation to the extent of subsidy received towards co-generation plant. The assessee challenged the order of the Assessing Officer at Annexure-B in each case before the C I T (Appeals) in ITA No.309 and 376/BGM/08-09. The CIT, placing reliance on the earlier order passed by the ITAT, by order dated 31.8.2009 (vide Annexure

M/S PADMINI PRODUCTS (P) LTD., vs. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX

In the result, the aforesaid

Bench: ALOK ARADHE,H.T. NARENDRA PRASAD

43(1)? 2. Facts leading to filing of this appeal in nut shell are that the assessee is a Private Limited Company 4 engaged in the business of manufacturing, dealing and exporting of incense sticks and allied products. The assessee succeeded to, in the business of partnership firm viz., ‘Padmini Products’ with effect from 01.02.2005. Before the firm was converted

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

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 vs. M/S MPHASIS LTD

The appeal is dismissed accordingly

Bench: SATISH CHANDRA SHARMA,V SRISHANANDA

section 43(5) of the Act.” 8. This Court has admitted the appeal on the following substantial questions of law : “1. Whether the Tribunal on the facts and circumstances of the case, the Tribunal is right in law in setting aside the disallowance

SMT. PUNEETHA @ PUNEETHA B. A. vs. SRI. D. RAVI

The appeal is dismissed accordingly

Bench: R DEVDAS

section 43(5) of the Act.” 8. This Court has admitted the appeal on the following substantial questions of law : “1. Whether the Tribunal on the facts and circumstances of the case, the Tribunal is right in law in setting aside the disallowance

THE PR COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX vs. M/S HINDUSTAN AERONAUTICS LTD

In the result, the order of the

Bench: ALOK ARADHE,H.T. NARENDRA PRASAD

disallowance of its claim under Section 14A of the Act was made. The revenue has filed an appeal being aggrieved by the order of the tribunal granting the alternate relief to the assessee for Research and Development expenses under Section 35(1)(iv) of the Act. 8 6. Learned counsel for the assessee submitted that the authorities under

HINDUSTAN AERONAUTICS LIMITED vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER

In the result, the order of the

Bench: ALOK ARADHE,H.T. NARENDRA PRASAD

disallowance of its claim under Section 14A of the Act was made. The revenue has filed an appeal being aggrieved by the order of the tribunal granting the alternate relief to the assessee for Research and Development expenses under Section 35(1)(iv) of the Act. 8 6. Learned counsel for the assessee submitted that the authorities under

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 T T K PRESTIGE LTD vs. THE UNION OF INDIA REPTD BY ITS FINANCE SECRETARY

Bench: The Hon’Ble Mr.Justice P.B. Bajanthri W.P. No.26037/2005 C/W W.P.No.4464/2007 & W.P.No.27087/2005(It)

43 relates to taxes wherein fringe benefits has been included. Therefore, total income is required to be taken under Section 4 which is the charging section. 8. Learned counsel for the respondent vehemently contended that where a validity of an Act is under challenge, scope of interference by the Court is limited to the extent of, “Whether legislative competency

THE PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER vs. M/S OBULAPURAM MINING

Bench: K.SOMASHEKAR,UMESH M ADIGA

Section 144C(13) of the Income Tax Act on 31.12.2013, determining total income at Rs.10,86,34,35,052/- by making various additions, which reads as under: Additional / Issues Rs. Transfer pricing adjustments 112,20,92,081/- Claim of bogus transportation expenses of iron ore 40% attributable towards illegal mining. 86,43,47,335/- Disallowance

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

Bench: CHIEF JUSTICE,C M JOSHI

disallowance of 10% of dividend income under Section 14A of the Act. 5. The Assessee is engaged in the business of providing back office support and data processing services to its customers. The Assessee had filed its return of income [ROI] for the AY 2015-16 and AY 2016-17 on 30.11.2015 and 14.10.2016 respectively. The Assessee had declared

M/S KODAGU DISTRICT CO-OPERATIVE CENTRAL BANK LTD vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX

In the result, the order passed by the Assessing

Bench: ALOK ARADHE,R. NATARAJ

Section 14A of 7 the Act. Paragraph 5 of the Act is reproduced below for reference: “5. Disallowance U/s 14A: The assessee claimed that Income received from Mutual Fund is totally exempt from Income Tax U/s 10(23D)(i) & (ii) of the Income Tax Act, 1961. These mutual funds are registered under the Securities and Exchange Board of India

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

disallowance of the expenditure even when the tax payer in a particular year has not earned any exempt income?” 4. Sri Balaram Rao, learned counsel for the assessee has stated that in ITA No.133/2015 the same question of law has been answered in favour of the assessee and against the revenue. 5. Sri K.V.Aravind, learned counsel for the revenue

THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX vs. M/S VESESH INFOTECHNICS LIMITEDD

Bench: B.MANOHAR,K.SREEDHAR RAO

43,212/- from this Unit. On reassessment, deduction under Section 80-IA was disallowed. 4. For the assessment year 2000-2001, the assessee