MANGALORE REFINERY AND PETROCHEMICALS LTD vs. PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX

In the result, I pass the following:-

Bench: The Hon'Ble Mr.Justice S.R.Krishna Kumar

Disallowance under section 40(a)(i): Particulars Disputed Income Disputed tax [i.e., tax @ 33.99% on disputed income] Payable under DTVST Act @s 50% of tax As per Petitioner 42,92,10,516 14,58,88,654 7,29,44

MANGALORE REFINERY AND PETROCHEMICALS LTD vs. PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX

In the result, I pass the following:-

Bench: The Hon'Ble Mr.Justice S.R.Krishna Kumar

Disallowance under section 40(a)(i): Particulars Disputed Income Disputed tax [i.e., tax @ 33.99% on disputed income] Payable under DTVST Act @s 50% of tax As per Petitioner 42,92,10,516 14,58,88,654 7,29,44

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

The appeals are dismissed

Bench: SATISH CHANDRA SHARMA,SURAJ GOVINDARAJ

disallowance if the order passed in sum and substance meets the legal requirements then it is said to be a valid order and appellate authorities has power to either enhance or reduce tax liability?”. I.T.A. NO.141 OF 2020 c/w I.T.A. NO.151 OF 2020 12 11. Sri.K.V.Aravind, learned Senior Standing Counsel for the Revenue, submits that: 11.1. The deduction under Section

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

44 Further, Clause 7 which is appended to the Finance Bill, 2013, reads as follows: “Clause 7 of the Bill seeks to amend Section 40 of the Income-tax Act relating to amounts not deductible. The provisions of Section 40 specify the amounts which shall not be deducted in computing the income chargeable under the head “Profits and gains

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

44 would be exceeding in his jurisdiction, if he were to undertake the exercise of examining as to whether the certificate issued by the prescribed authority is within the parameters of statutory provisions of the Act or otherwise. Keeping in mind that such contingency may arise, Parliament has incorporated sub-section (3) to Section 35 of the Act which would

SHRI. SHANKARLAL GILADA vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER,

Bench: G.NARENDAR,M.NAGAPRASANNA

disallowed and cannot be treated as business expenditure. Keeping this objective behind Section 14-A of the Act in mind, the said provision has to be interpreted, particularly, the word “in relation to the income” that does not form part of total income. Considered in this hue, the principle of apportionment of expenses comes into play as that

THE PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER vs. M/S OBULAPURAM MINING

Bench: K.SOMASHEKAR,UMESH M ADIGA

disallowed is the rental actually paid to the Indian companies. There is no foreign transaction involved. Further Chapter X itself is not attractive. The charge regarding domestic transactions, helicopter rental in this case was applicable by Finance Act, 2012 w.ef. 01.04.2013. Therefore, for the current Assessment Year 2009-10, domestic transactions of helicopter rentals cannot be made applicable. These

THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX vs. M/S. KINGFISHER FINVEST INDIA LTD

In the result, the appeals filed by the Revenue

Bench: ALOK ARADHE(ACJ),M.I.ARUN

disallowed the interest expenditure of Rs.57,92,44,082/- under Section 14A of the Act read with Rule 8D of the Income

M/S BANGALORE ELECTRICITY SUPPLY COMPANY LTD vs. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX

In the result, the order passed by the tribunal

Bench: ALOK ARADHE,R. NATARAJ

44,170/- under Section 80IA(4)(iv)(c) of the Act and book profits of Rs.88,46,17,415/- under Section 115JB of the Act. The case was selected for scrutiny and notice under Section 143(2) of the Act was 4 issued. The Assessing Officer passed an order under Section 143(3) of the Act on 31.12.2007 and disallowed

OFFICIAL LIQUIDATOR

Appeal is dismissed

Bench: S SUNIL DUTT YADAV

44,489/- for AY 2013-14. The Assessing Officer2 applying Section 14A and Rule 8-D disallowed a total of sum of Rs.35

PR COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-2 vs. M/S EXIDE LIFE INSURANCE COMPANY LTD

The appeals stand disposed of as indicated

Bench: S.SUJATHA,SHIVASHANKAR AMARANNAVAR

disallowance made under section 10(23AAB) of the Act by following its earlier order by holding that as assessee is in business of life insurance, the income has to be computed as per section 44

PR COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-2 vs. M/S EXIDE LIFE INSURANCE COMPANY LTD

The appeals stand disposed of as indicated

Bench: S.SUJATHA,SHIVASHANKAR AMARANNAVAR

disallowance made under section 10(23AAB) of the Act by following its earlier order by holding that as assessee is in business of life insurance, the income has to be computed as per section 44

PR COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-2 vs. M/S EXIDE LIFE INSURANCE COMPANY LTD

The appeals stand disposed of as indicated

Bench: S.SUJATHA,SHIVASHANKAR AMARANNAVAR

disallowance made under section 10(23AAB) of the Act by following its earlier order by holding that as assessee is in business of life insurance, the income has to be computed as per section 44

PR.COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-2 vs. M/S EXIDE LIFE INSURANCE COMPANY LTD

The appeals stand disposed of as indicated

Bench: S.SUJATHA,SHIVASHANKAR AMARANNAVAR

disallowance made under section 10(23AAB) of the Act by following its earlier order by holding that as assessee is in business of life insurance, the income has to be computed as per section 44

PR COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-2 vs. M/S EXIDE LIFE INSURANCE COMPANY LTD

The appeals stand disposed of as indicated

Bench: S.SUJATHA,SHIVASHANKAR AMARANNAVAR

disallowance made under section 10(23AAB) of the Act by following its earlier order by holding that as assessee is in business of life insurance, the income has to be computed as per section 44

PR COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX- 4 vs. M/S JUPITER

Appeal is allowed in part accordingly

Bench: P.S.DINESH KUMAR,C.M. POONACHA

Section 36(1)(iii) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (for short 'Act') and added it to the 2 125 taxmann.com 164 (Karnataka) 3 Assessing Year - 5 - ITA No. 297 of 2017 Income. The CIT(A)4 has deleted the said addition and ITAT has confirmed the view taken by the CIT(A). 7. Shri. Sanmathi submitted that the Assessee

PR. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX vs. M/S SASKEN

Appeals are dismissed at the stage of admission

Bench: ABHAY SHREENIWAS OKA (CJ),S.G.PANDIT

disallowed compensation received on termination of export/service contract as it cannot be treated I.T.A.Nos.44-45/2016 - 3 - as business income, arising out of export activity and denied the claim of brought forward losses against income claimed as deduction under Section

M/S. B FOURESS (P) LIMITED vs. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER

In the result, the order dated

Bench: ALOK ARADHE,R. NATARAJ

44,87,730/- which was revised on 22.03.2011. Thereafter, the assessment was concluded under Section 143(3) of the Act on 14.12.2011 by the Assessing Officer after disallowing