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

The appeal stands disposed of as

Bench: SATISH CHANDRA SHARMA,R. NATARAJ

46 ITR PAGE 144) AND GODHRA 6 ELECTRICITY CO.LTD CASE (REPORTED IN 225 ITR PAGE 746)? 7. Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal is right in law in holding that addition to book profits under Section 115 JB towards expenditure on exempt income is purely academic in nature as the Tribunal has held

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

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

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

Bench: CHIEF JUSTICE,C M JOSHI

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 Tax Appellate Tribunal [Tribunal] in ITA No.1367/Bang/2024 in respect of the Assessment Year

THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX vs. M/S. CHAITANYA PROPERTIES PVT LTD

Bench: S.SUJATHA,VINEET KOTHARI

Section 14A of the Act read with Rule 8D of the Rules. 3. The relevant findings and reasons given by the learned Tribunal to hold in favour of the Assessee that the disallowance to the extent of Rs.1,93,730/- could not be made by the Assessing Authority to earn exempted income by way of dividends from equity shares

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

disallowed under Section 35 of the Act. In other words, the assessing officer is precluded from examining the correctness or otherwise of the certificate issued by the prescribed authority on the ground that it is either being contrary to facts or contrary to the express provisions of the Act. It would not be out of context to state that when

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

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 COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX vs. M/S.ABB LTD

In the result, both the substantial questions

Bench: ALOK ARADHE,HEMANT CHANDANGOUDAR

46(2) of the Act as capital loss in view of decision in CIT VS. JAI KRISHNA, 231 ITR 108 is perverse? 2. Facts leading to filing of this appeal briefly stated are that assessee is engaged in the business of manufacture of field instrumentation. The assessee filed the return declaring loss of Rs.7,40,96,877/- on 29.10.2001, which

THE COMMISSINER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS) AND ANR vs. THE BIJAPUR DISTRICT CENTRAL

Bench: R.DEVDAS,VINEET KOTHARI

disallowance of such interest paid to the members without TDS, was liable to be made as per the provisions of Section 40 (a) (ia) of the Act. 4. Both the learned counsel at Bar fairly submitted that the said issue is no longer res-integra in view of the CBTD Circular No.19/2015 holding that such Co-operative Banks

COFFEE DAY GLOBAL LIMITED vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX

The appeal is allowed

Bench: SATISH CHANDRA SHARMA,R. NATARAJ

disallowance of a sum of Rs.1,46,80,683/- ordered by the Assessing Officer under Section 36(1)(iii) of the Income

COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-III, vs. M/S. TELCO CONSTRUCTION

In the result, we do not find any merit in this

Bench: ALOK ARADHE,R. NATARAJ

disallowed under Section 40(a)(ia) for non-deduction of tax at source for a sum of Rs.6,46,11,000/- and disallowance

ANTONY PARAKAL KURIAN vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX

Appeal is allowed in part

Bench: S.SUJATHA,S RACHAIAH

46 taxmann.com 170 (Karnataka), for denying exemption under section 54F, is perverse and contrary to law? 4 2. The assessee, a salaried person working in M/s IGUS India Private Limited, had filed a return of income showing the capital gains for the assessment year under consideration. CLAIM OF THE ASSESSEE: 3. During the relevant assessment year, the assessee had sold

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

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

M/S KARNATAKA STATE BEVERAGES CORPORATION LTD vs. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX

In the result, the orders passed by the

Bench: ALOK ARADHE,H.T. NARENDRA PRASAD

46,907/-. The case of the assessee was selected for scrutiny and notice under Section 143(2) of the Act was served on the assessee. The Assessing Officer by an order dated 31.10.2006 disallowed

THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX GULBARGA vs. M/S MANJUNATHA COTTON AND GINNING FACTORY

The appeals are dismissed

Bench: ARAVIND KUMAR,N.KUMAR

disallowed in computing the total income of such person as a result thereof shall, for the purposes of clause (c) of this sub-section be deemed to represent the income in respect of which particulars have been concealed. 24. Section 274 deals with procedure to be followed before imposing penalty under Chapter XXI. It reads as under:- “274. Procedure

M/S CANARA BANK BSCA SECTION vs. THE ASST COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE-11(2)

Bench: N.KUMAR,RATHNAKALA

46,79,254/- [including 244A interest], was issued. Thereafter, the case was selected for scrutiny under section 143[3] of the Income Tax Act, 1961 [for short hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’]. Notices were issued under sections 143[2] and 143[1] on 26.11.2001 which was received by the assessee on the same day. The assessee had claimed disallowance