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

The appeals stand disposed of, accordingly

Bench: N.KUMAR,B.SREENIVASE GOWDA

d) in ITA No. 108/2009 (Assessee’s appeal)] “Whether the Tribunal was right in holding that credit for income tax paid in a country outside India in relation to income eligible for deduction under section 10A would not be available under section 90(1)(a)?” [Question of law No. 18 in ITA Nos. 210 & 211/2009 (Department’s Appeal)] - 25 - “Whether

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

The appeals stand disposed of, accordingly

Bench: N.KUMAR,B.SREENIVASE GOWDA

d) in ITA No. 108/2009 (Assessee’s appeal)] “Whether the Tribunal was right in holding that credit for income tax paid in a country outside India in relation to income eligible for deduction under section 10A would not be available under section 90(1)(a)?” [Question of law No. 18 in ITA Nos. 210 & 211/2009 (Department’s Appeal)] - 25 - “Whether

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

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 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 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

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

d) empowers the Financial Commissioner to direct that a licence, permit or pass be granted under the Act on payment of such fees and subject to such restrictions and on such conditions as he may prescribe. In such a scheme, it is not of the essence whether the amount charged to the licensees is predetermined as in the appeals

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

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

Bench: CHIEF JUSTICE,C M JOSHI

43,60,79,542 - 7 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:36360-DB ITA No. 107 of 2025 C/W ITA No. 106 of 2025 Add: Voluntary TP adjustment 36,90,62,637 Income from business of the undertaking after voluntary TP adjustment 80,51,42,179 7. The AO had denied the exemption under Section 10AA on the TP pricing adjustment

THE PR. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX vs. M/S CISCO SYSTEMS

The appeals are allowed; the impugned

Bench: SATISH CHANDRA SHARMA,R. NATARAJ

disallowed the excess depreciation claimed on networking equipments. 3. The Principal Commissioner of Income Tax, Bengaluru, thereafter issued a notice under Section 263 of the Act of 1961 on 5.3.2015 and called upon the assessee to explain as to why the assessment order passed by the assessing officer under Section 143(3) of the Act of 1961 should

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

D G M E N T These appeals are filed by the Revenue under Section 260-A of the Income Tax Act (‘the Act’ for short), being aggrieved by the order dated 02-12-2005 passed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal allowing the appeals in part 5 and granting the benefit under Section

SHRI. SHANKARLAL GILADA vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER,

Bench: G.NARENDAR,M.NAGAPRASANNA

5. Without prejudice, the addition is excessive, arbitrary and unreasonable and liable to be deleted in toto. 6. For these and other grounds that may be urged at the time of hearing of the appeal the appellant prays that the appeal may be allowed.” 6. The Tribunal, by its order dated 24.8.2017, dismissed the appeal filed by the appellant

M/S. KARNATAKA INSTRADE CORPORATION LIMITED vs. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX

The appeal is allowed in part

Bench: B.MANOHAR,VINEET SARAN

43-D. Therefore in computing the income from business, the provisions of Section 32 as well as Section 41 of the Act would be applicable. Therefore, once the amount realized by the assessee by sale of building, plant and machinery is treated as income arising out of the profits and gains from the business by virtue of sub-Section

M/S FIDELITY BUSINESS SERVICES INDIA PVT LTD vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX

Bench: S.SUJATHA,VINEET KOTHARI

5) of the Income Tax Act, 1961, the Assessee Company preferred an appeal before the learned Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT), who disposed of the said appeal by the impugned Order dated 22/02/2017. Date of Judgment :23-07-2018 I.T.A.No.512/2017 M/s. Fidelity Business Services India Pvt. Ltd., Vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income-Tax, & Anr. 7/86 9. The learned Tribunal