THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX vs. M/S WIPRO LTD

The appeals stand disposed of, accordingly

Bench: N.KUMAR,B.SREENIVASE GOWDA

5) of the Act defines the mandatory requirements and the time limit for rectification and the assessee has not filed any revised return for claim of tax credit with reference to income computed under Section 10A. - 28 - 17. Thereafter, the Assessing Authority proceeded to decide the claim on merits also. Insofar as assessment year 2001-02 is concerned

M/S WIPRO LIMITED vs. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX

The appeals stand disposed of, accordingly

Bench: N.KUMAR,B.SREENIVASE GOWDA

5) of the Act defines the mandatory requirements and the time limit for rectification and the assessee has not filed any revised return for claim of tax credit with reference to income computed under Section 10A. - 28 - 17. Thereafter, the Assessing Authority proceeded to decide the claim on merits also. Insofar as assessment year 2001-02 is concerned

M/S BEST TRADING & AGENCIES LTD vs. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX

In the result, the orders passed by the

Bench: ALOK ARADHE,H.T. NARENDRA PRASAD

5. The Assessing Officer passed an order of assessment on 30.11.2007 under Section 143(3) of the Act and disallowed

M/S BEST TRADING & AGENCIES LTD vs. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX

In the result, the orders passed by the

Bench: ALOK ARADHE,H.T. NARENDRA PRASAD

5. The Assessing Officer passed an order of assessment on 30.11.2007 under Section 143(3) of the Act and disallowed

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

5(1) of the 6 DTVSV Act. Against the aforesaid Certificates, the petitioner filed rectification applications which were also rejected by the respondents by passing the impugned orders which are also challenged in the present petitions. 7. It is seen that pursuant to the petitioner filing Returns for the subject assessment years 2008-09 and 2009-10, the Assessing Officer

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

5(1) of the 6 DTVSV Act. Against the aforesaid Certificates, the petitioner filed rectification applications which were also rejected by the respondents by passing the impugned orders which are also challenged in the present petitions. 7. It is seen that pursuant to the petitioner filing Returns for the subject assessment years 2008-09 and 2009-10, the Assessing Officer

THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX vs. KSRTC EMPLOYEES DEATH-CUM-RETIREMENT BENEFIT

Appeals stand dismissed

Bench: N.KUMAR,RATHNAKALA

5) of the Act in order to avail the benefit under Section 10(23AAA) of the Act. Therefore, he disallowed

THE PR. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX vs. M/S. TE CONNECTIVITY INDIA PVT. LTD.,

Accordingly dispose of the appeal as allowed

Bench: ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE,S RACHAIAH

disallowance under Section 40(a)(ia) of the Act was made. 5. He also stated, the exercise of jurisdiction by the PCIT

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

5 2009-10 on the ground that the loss had been actually incurred and there is no logic in restricting the loss to the extent of provision created in the earlier year. However, on the issue of disallowance under Section

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)

5. It was contended on behalf of the petitioner that fringe benefit tax is double levy in the hands of the employer. It is submitted that the expenditure allowed under section 37 of the Act is considered for the purpose of fringe benefit tax. The expenditure being personal in nature disallowed

ESSILOR INDIA PVT LTD vs. THE DEPUTY

The appeal is disposed of

Bench: ALOK ARADHE,SHIVASHANKAR AMARANNAVAR

5 disallowance of Rs,1,61,035/- under Section 14A read with Rule 8D of the Rules could be made

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

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 made under Section 14A of the Act? 3. I.T.A.No.468/2016 was admitted by a bench of this Court vide order dated 13.06.2017 on the following substantial question of law: Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was 5

HINDUSTAN AERONAUTICS LIMITED vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER

In the result, the order of the

Bench: ALOK ARADHE,H.T. NARENDRA PRASAD

disallowance made under Section 14A of the Act? 3. I.T.A.No.468/2016 was admitted by a bench of this Court vide order dated 13.06.2017 on the following substantial question of law: Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was 5

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

disallow the privilege fee in respect of the assessment years prior to 2014-15, is clearly without reference to any legal provision. The opinion expressed by the Assessing Officer is that the amendment to Section 40(a)(iib) is clarificatory in nature. Therefore, privilege fee could be levied 16 only from the year 2014-15 and could

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

The appeals are dismissed

Bench: SATISH CHANDRA SHARMA,SURAJ GOVINDARAJ

5 thereon since the same is not covered under Section 194-C or under Section 194-I of the Income Tax Act. 4. The Assessing Officer vide final order dated 25.01.2012 had held that the Assessee was not eligible for any deduction under Section 80JJ(AA) of the Act. The Assessing Officer also held that since the Assessee

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

The appeal stands disposed of as

Bench: SATISH CHANDRA SHARMA,R. NATARAJ

Section 14A in respect of Exempt Income, the question of adding back the amount of disallowances to the book profits does not arise even though bank earned exempt income from tax and as such assessing authority rightly estimated 5

THE PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER vs. M/S OBULAPURAM MINING

Bench: K.SOMASHEKAR,UMESH M ADIGA

Disallowance of expenses claimed under section 37(1) towards illegal mining. 387,76,69,992/- 4. Aggrieved by the above additions, the assessee preferred an appeal before the Tribunal against the additions made hereinabove, which came to be allowed. 5