THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX LTU vs. M/S. CANARA BANK

The appeal stands disposed of as

Bench: SATISH CHANDRA SHARMA,R. NATARAJ

disallowance of claim of deduction on account of commission on locker rent received in advance of Rs.112.84 Crore by following the decision of Apex Court in the case of CIT vs. EXCEL INDUSRIES (reported in 358 ITR page 295) and decision of Calcutta High court in the case of Bank of Tokyo Ltd.? 3. Whether on the facts

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

THE PR. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, vs. M/S. DELHI INTERNATIONAL AIRPORT PVT. LTD.,

Bench: S.SUJATHA,S VISHWAJITH SHETTY

disallowing the claim under section 40(a)(ia) of the Act. 6. Learned counsel appearing for the Revenue, justifying the impugned order of the Tribunal submitted that, the Airlines Operators while paying Passenger Service Fees [PSF (SC & FC) were retaining the amount - 12 - of 2.5% of the invoice value on account of prompt payment by them to the assessee before

M/S DELHI INTERNATIONAL AIRPORT LTD vs. THE PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX

Bench: S.SUJATHA,S VISHWAJITH SHETTY

disallowing the claim under section 40(a)(ia) of the Act. 6. Learned counsel appearing for the Revenue, justifying the impugned order of the Tribunal submitted that, the Airlines Operators while paying Passenger Service Fees [PSF (SC & FC) were retaining the amount - 12 - of 2.5% of the invoice value on account of prompt payment by them to the assessee before

M/S DELHI INTERNATIONAL vs. THE PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER

Bench: S.SUJATHA,S VISHWAJITH SHETTY

disallowing the claim under section 40(a)(ia) of the Act. 6. Learned counsel appearing for the Revenue, justifying the impugned order of the Tribunal submitted that, the Airlines Operators while paying Passenger Service Fees [PSF (SC & FC) were retaining the amount - 12 - of 2.5% of the invoice value on account of prompt payment by them to the assessee before

THE PR. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, vs. M/S. DELHI INTERNATIONAL AIRPORT PVT. LTD.,

Bench: S.SUJATHA,S VISHWAJITH SHETTY

disallowing the claim under section 40(a)(ia) of the Act. 6. Learned counsel appearing for the Revenue, justifying the impugned order of the Tribunal submitted that, the Airlines Operators while paying Passenger Service Fees [PSF (SC & FC) were retaining the amount - 12 - of 2.5% of the invoice value on account of prompt payment by them to the assessee before

M/S DELHI INTERNATIONAL AIRPORT LTD vs. THE PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX

Bench: S.SUJATHA,S VISHWAJITH SHETTY

disallowing the claim under section 40(a)(ia) of the Act. 6. Learned counsel appearing for the Revenue, justifying the impugned order of the Tribunal submitted that, the Airlines Operators while paying Passenger Service Fees [PSF (SC & FC) were retaining the amount - 12 - of 2.5% of the invoice value on account of prompt payment by them to the assessee before

THE PR. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, vs. M/S. DELHI INTERNATIONAL AIRPORT PVT. LTD.

Bench: S.SUJATHA,S VISHWAJITH SHETTY

disallowing the claim under section 40(a)(ia) of the Act. 6. Learned counsel appearing for the Revenue, justifying the impugned order of the Tribunal submitted that, the Airlines Operators while paying Passenger Service Fees [PSF (SC & FC) were retaining the amount - 12 - of 2.5% of the invoice value on account of prompt payment by them to the assessee before

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

45 assessee under Section 35(2AB) would fall within the said provision or outside. This exercise of examining the correctness of the Certificate issued by the prescribed authority is not available to the assessing Officer as could be seen from scheme of Section 35 of the Act. 28. It is in this background, sub-section (4) of Section 43 will

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 14A read with Rule 8D(ii) of the Act? 3. Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal is right in setting aside the disallowance of Rs.1,45

THE PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER vs. M/S OBULAPURAM MINING

Bench: K.SOMASHEKAR,UMESH M ADIGA

45. Perusal of the provisions of sub section (2) of section 92A, for the purpose of Sub Section (1) of section 92A, at least one condition out of 13 conditions prescribed in sub section (2) as per clause (a) to (m) has to be satisfied. Since, the only one share 48 of GLATIPL was held by ILSGL and the assessee

XIAOMI TECHNOLOGY INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX

In the result, I pass the following:

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

disallowed. On 10.08.2022, petitioner submitted a detailed response along with documents and contested the said Notice and proceedings. - 6 - 2.3 On 11.08.2022, upon obtaining approval from the 3rd respondent, the 1st respondent passed the impugned order under Section 281B of the I.T.Act provisionally attaching the subject fixed deposits of the petitioner in a sum of INR 3,700 crores

SRI N GOVINDARAJU vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER

Appeal stands disposed of

Bench: S.SUJATHA,VINEET SARAN

45 of the Act provides for how profit or gain arising from transfer of capital asset is to be charged to income tax as ‘Capital gains’. Sub-section (2) provides that the ‘fair market value’ of the asset would be deemed to be the ‘full value of the consideration’ on the relevant date. Section

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 as it was not meant for management of construction, but on other expenses, such as advertisement, sales promotion etc. Therefore, the income had to be assessed under the head income from other sources. The Tribunal held that the income had to be assessed as business income and the assessee could not have received a sum of Rs.78.25 lakh without

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 as it was not meant for management of construction, but on other expenses, such as advertisement, sales promotion etc. Therefore, the income had to be assessed under the head income from other sources. The Tribunal held that the income had to be assessed as business income and the assessee could not have received a sum of Rs.78.25 lakh without

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 as it was not meant for management of construction, but on other expenses, such as advertisement, sales promotion etc. Therefore, the income had to be assessed under the head income from other sources. The Tribunal held that the income had to be assessed as business income and the assessee could not have received a sum of Rs.78.25 lakh without

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 PR. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX vs. MRS. VANAJA MATTHEN

The appeal is dismissed

Bench: This Court, Questioning The Order Dated 25.01.2017 In

disallowed deduction under Section 54F of the Income-Tax Act, 1961 (‘the Act’ for short) on the ground that the assessee purchased the property vide sale deeds dated 10.09.2008 and 20.11.2008, however, the construction of the flats have not been completed when the purchase was made under the said sale deeds. Further, it observed that the construction was completed