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

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

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

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

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

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

The appeal is dismissed accordingly

Bench: SATISH CHANDRA SHARMA,V SRISHANANDA

6 7. It is submitted that the Tribunal erred in setting aside the recomputation of section 10B deduction by following the decision of this Hon’ble High Court in the case of CIT v/s Tata Elxsi and even when the recomputation done by the assessing authority is in accordance with the provisions of the Act. 8. It is submitted that

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

The appeal is dismissed accordingly

Bench: R DEVDAS

6 7. It is submitted that the Tribunal erred in setting aside the recomputation of section 10B deduction by following the decision of this Hon’ble High Court in the case of CIT v/s Tata Elxsi and even when the recomputation done by the assessing authority is in accordance with the provisions of the Act. 8. It is submitted that

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

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

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)

6. Learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that Section 4 of the Act, 1961 relates to charge of income Tax and Section 5 relates to scope of total income for which receipt is mandatory for income. Section 115 WA under chapter XII – H relates to additional income Tax. In this backdrop, learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that Article

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

6 2nd Floor, TTMC A Block, BMTC Complex, K.H.Road, Shantinagar, Bangalore 560 001. …RESPONDENTS (By Shri Jeevan J Neeralgi, Advocate for Respondent Nos. 1and 2; Shri Madhusudhan R Naik, Advocate General for Shri S.V.Giri Kumar, Additional Government Advocate for Respondent Nos. 3 and 4) This Writ Petition filed under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India praying

THE PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER vs. M/S OBULAPURAM MINING

Bench: K.SOMASHEKAR,UMESH M ADIGA

6 only because one of the directors of the assessee company and of GLATIPL is common, Section 93CA is not applicable. The Tribunal also held that in order to constitute a relationship of an AE, the parameters laid down in both subsections (1) and (2) should be fulfilled. As per explanation, amendment carried out in sub-section (2) of section

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

6 (3) The provisions of sub-section (2) shall also apply in relation to a case where an assessee claims that no expenditure has been incurred by him in relation to income which does not form part of the total income under this Act.” Thus, from perusal of the aforesaid provision, it is axiomatic that if the Assessing Officer, having

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 filed the Income Tax returns on 30-11-2000 declaring the total income of Rs.1,11,76,800/- and claiming deduction of Rs.1,50,56,903/- under Section 80-IB and Rs.19,00,000/- towards the litigation