COFFEEDAY GLOBAL LTD. vs. ADDITIONAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX

In the result, the orders dated 21

Bench: ALOK ARADHE,ASHOK S.KINAGI

disallowance of interest under Section 36(1)(iii) of the Act. Similarly twin issues arise for consideration in this appeal viz., whether loan processing and other charges can be allowed as revenue expenditure or has to be treated as capital in nature and whether the tribunal has acted in contravention of the provision of Section

COFFEEDAY GLOBAL LTD. vs. ADDITIONAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX

In the result, the orders dated 21

Bench: ALOK ARADHE,ASHOK S.KINAGI

disallowance of interest under Section 36(1)(iii) of the Act. Similarly twin issues arise for consideration in this appeal viz., whether loan processing and other charges can be allowed as revenue expenditure or has to be treated as capital in nature and whether the tribunal has acted in contravention of the provision of 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

section so as to provide that any amount paid by way of royalty, licence fee, service fee, privilege fee, service charge or any other fee or charge, by whatever name called which is levied exclusively on or any amount which is appropriated, whether directly or indirectly, from a State Government undertaking by the State Government, shall not be allowed

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

disallowed. 3. Being aggrieved, the assessee filed an appeal before the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) who by an order dated 20.02.2013 dismissed the appeal. The 7 assessee thereupon approached the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (hereinafter referred to as 'the Tribunal' for short) by filing an appeal. The Tribunal by an order dated 10.01.2013 inter alia held that transaction itself

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

disallow the claim made by an assessee under Section 35(2AB) which does not include any expenditure incurred in the acquisition of rights, in, or arising out of scientific research would be within the domain of the jurisdictional assessing Officer. In other words, the issue of jurisdiction of assessing officer to examine such claim, is an issue which requires

THE PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER vs. M/S OBULAPURAM MINING

Bench: K.SOMASHEKAR,UMESH M ADIGA

Section 144C(13) of the Income Tax Act on 31.12.2013, determining total income at Rs.10,86,34,35,052/- by making various additions, which reads as under: Additional / Issues Rs. Transfer pricing adjustments 112,20,92,081/- Claim of bogus transportation expenses of iron ore 40% attributable towards illegal mining. 86,43,47,335/- Disallowance

THE PR. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME -TAX vs. M/S KAWASAKI MICRO ELECTRONICS INC

The appeal is disposed of

Bench: ALOK ARADHE,H.T. NARENDRA PRASAD

disallowance contemplated under Section 40(a)(i) of the Act would be applicable even for denying depreciation under Section 32 of the Act. In support of aforesaid submissions, reliance has been placed on decisions in MYSORE MINERALS LTD. VS. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME- TAX, (1999) 106 TAXMAN 166 (SC) and 'SHRI. 5 CHAUDHARY TRANSPORT COMPANY VS ITO', (2020) 81 TAXMANN.COM 47

PR COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-5 vs. M/S NOVELL SOFTWARE DEVELOPMENT (INDIA) PVT.LTD.

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

Bench: ALOK ARADHE,R. NATARAJ

disallowances under Section 40(a)(i)(a) of the Act. Thus, the Assessing Officer made a total addition of Rs.8,72,47

THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX vs. M/S RAJMAHAL SILKS

The appeal is disposed of

Bench: ALOK ARADHE,H.T. NARENDRA PRASAD

disallowing the business expenditure under Section 37(1) of the Act and passed an order under Section 153A read with Section 143(3) of the Act on 31.12.2007. 3. The assessee filed an appeal before the 5 Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals). The Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) by an order dated 30.03.2010 held that transportation expenses to the extent

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

M/S. EVERGREEN HARDWARE STORES vs. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF

Appeal is allowed

Bench: P.S.DINESH KUMAR,UMESH M ADIGA

47,79,298/- is to be taken as deemed profit on transfer of stock and consequently passed a perverse order on the facts and circumstances of the case. 4. Whether the Tribunal was justified in confirming the disallowance of Rs.53,367/- under Section

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

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 PR COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX vs. M/S ATRIA WIND (KADAMBUR) PVT LTD

Bench: CHIEF JUSTICE,C M JOSHI

47(xiii) (a) and (c) of the Act. The said conclusions are based on factual findings and we find no infirmity with the same. The AO had also rejected the assessee's contention on the ground that the shares issued in the assessee firm to the erstwhile partners was not in the same ratio. However, we note that there

CHITTHARANJAN A DASANNACHARYA vs. THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-V

In the result, the appeal is allowed

Bench: ALOK ARADHE,H.T. NARENDRA PRASAD

disallowed. The assessee thereupon approached the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) who by an order dated 31.10.2011 dismissed the appeal on merits. However, the interest levied under Section 234B of the Act was set aside. The assessee as well as the revenue filed the appeals before the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (hereinafter referred to as 'the tribunal' for short

THE PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER vs. M/S OBULAPURAM MINING

Bench: K.SOMASHEKAR,UMESH M ADIGA

47 “Any expenditure (not being expenditure of the nature described in section 30 to 36 and not being in the nature of capital expenditure or personal expenses of the assessee) laid out or expended wholly and exclusively for the purpose of the business or profession shall be allowed in computing the income chargeable under the head “Profits and gains

ANTONY PARAKAL KURIAN vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX

Appeal is allowed in part

Bench: S.SUJATHA,S RACHAIAH

disallowing exemption claimed under Sections 54 and 54F of the Act amounting to Rs.1,98,47,434/- and Rs.49,08,708/- respectively