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

The appeals stand disposed of, accordingly

Bench: N.KUMAR,B.SREENIVASE GOWDA

43,817/- u/s 143(1) read with Section 154. Notice u/s 142(1) was issued on 21.12.2001 with a questionnaire. Further notices u/s 142 (1) were issued on various dates beginning from 7.10.2003 to 8.3.2004. The assessee- company filed written replies along with enclosures from time to time. The return furnished on 30.10.2001 was processed

THE PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER vs. M/S OBULAPURAM MINING

Bench: K.SOMASHEKAR,UMESH M ADIGA

43,47,335/- Disallowance of expenses claimed under section 37(1) towards illegal mining. 387,76,69,992/- 4. Aggrieved

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

1)(i) r/w Section 43(4)(ii) of the Act and accordingly disallowance of the claim is without jurisdiction and it would

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

Bench: K.SOMASHEKAR,UMESH M ADIGA

43,81,302 Total tax 15,04,24,729 Less: TDS 28,20,543 Balance Tax 14,76,04,186 Less: Advance Tax 7,50,00,000 Balance Tax 7,26,04,186 Add: Interest u/s234A – 1,30,68,753 12 235B – 1,59,97,806 2,90,66,559 Total Tax 10,16,70,745 Less: 140A paid

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

Bench: K.SOMASHEKAR,UMESH M ADIGA

43,81,302 Total tax 15,04,24,729 Less: TDS 28,20,543 Balance Tax 14,76,04,186 Less: Advance Tax 7,50,00,000 Balance Tax 7,26,04,186 Add: Interest u/s234A – 1,30,68,753 235B – 1,59,97,806 2,90,66,559 13 Total Tax 10,16,70,745 Less: 140A paid

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

The Appeals are allowed

Bench: K.BHAKTHAVATSALA,B.SREENIVASE GOWDA

1) of the Income Tax Act were issued to the assessee to re-work the depreciation over the years and the opening of Written Down Value of the assets of the co-generation plant. After affording 4 an opportunity to the assessee, assessment orders dated 22.12.2008 and 17.12.2008 were passed disallowing the claim for depreciation to the extent of subsidy

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 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. 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

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 the claim of the assessee for deduction on account of depreciation on the aforesaid assets against income received in the form of maintenance fee charged from the tenants of the building, which was offered to tax under the head income from business by the assessee. Reference was made to various clauses of the lease agreement dated 11/8/2003 entered into

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 the claim of the assessee for deduction on account of depreciation on the aforesaid assets against income received in the form of maintenance fee charged from the tenants of the building, which was offered to tax under the head income from business by the assessee. Reference was made to various clauses of the lease agreement dated 11/8/2003 entered into

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 the claim of the assessee for deduction on account of depreciation on the aforesaid assets against income received in the form of maintenance fee charged from the tenants of the building, which was offered to tax under the head income from business by the assessee. Reference was made to various clauses of the lease agreement dated 11/8/2003 entered into

THE PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER vs. M/S OBULAPURAM MINING

Bench: K.SOMASHEKAR,UMESH M ADIGA

Disallowance is not maintainable on law and facts and evidence and requires to be deleted. The grounds of appeal, the addition of entire sale consideration and taxing the same amounts to levy of turnover tax for which the assessing officer has no jurisdiction. It is also learnt that appellant has been accounting the receipts on this account regularly

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

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

Bench: CHIEF JUSTICE,C M JOSHI

1. For the reasons stated in the applications ― I.A.No.1/2025, the same are allowed. The delay of 46 days in filing the above captioned appeals, is condoned. 2. The Revenue have filed the present appeals under Section 260A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 [the Act], impugning a common order dated 08.11.2024 [impugned order], passed by the learned Income

THE COMMISSIONER vs. M/S VIJAYA BANK

Bench: ALOK ARADHE,H.T. NARENDRA PRASAD

disallowed the aforesaid amount in terms of Section 14A of the Act. A sum of Rs.3,43,28,658/- being 5% thereof was estimated as expenditure incurred for earning such income. 3. The assessee, thereupon, filed an appeal. The Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) by an order dated 31.05.2011 partly allowed the appeal. Being aggrieved, the revenue as well

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