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

The appeals stand disposed of, accordingly

Bench: N.KUMAR,B.SREENIVASE GOWDA

Section 154. Notice u/s 142(1) was issued on 21.12.2001 with a questionnaire. Further notices u/s 142 (1) were issued on various dates beginning from 7.10.2003 to 8.3.2004. The assessee- company filed written replies along with enclosures from time to time. The return furnished on 30.10.2001 was processed u/s 143(3) of the I.T.Act on 24.03.2004 and order was passed

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

The appeals stand disposed of, accordingly

Bench: N.KUMAR,B.SREENIVASE GOWDA

Section 154. Notice u/s 142(1) was issued on 21.12.2001 with a questionnaire. Further notices u/s 142 (1) were issued on various dates beginning from 7.10.2003 to 8.3.2004. The assessee- company filed written replies along with enclosures from time to time. The return furnished on 30.10.2001 was processed u/s 143(3) of the I.T.Act on 24.03.2004 and order was passed

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

PR. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX vs. SMT. G. LAKSHMI ARUNA

Bench: K.SOMASHEKAR,UMESH M ADIGA

Disallowed (Rs.) (I) (II) (III) 2009-10 28,76,23,325 9,95,82,217 2010-11 2,29,05,056 1,46,91,363 Of these, the Assessing Officer found that to the extent given in column 3 above, the appellant was unable to substantiate the said expense claimed before the Assessing Officer. 16. In respect of assessment

PR. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX vs. SHRI. GALI JANARDHANA REDDY

Bench: K.SOMASHEKAR,UMESH M ADIGA

5 total income under the original assessment order passed. However, it was noticed that though the assessment proceedings was initiated by issue of notice under Section 143(2), The Tribunal vide said order also knocked down the assessment proceedings completed under Section 144 read with Section 153D on similar ground that no satisfaction note was recorded by the assessing officer

MADHU SOUHARDA PATHINA SAHAKARI NIYAMITHA vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER

The appeal stands dismissed

Bench: S.G.PANDIT,K. V. ARAVIND

disallowance of deduction under Section 80P of the Act, on the ground of non-filing of return of income, can be made only by invoking Section 80AC of the Act. However, Section 80AC has been made applicable to Section 80P of the Act by the Finance Act, 2018 with effect from 01.04.2018, i.e., from the Assessment Year 2018–19. Since

COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-III vs. M/S SYNDICATE BANK

The appeals are disposed of

Bench: ALOK ARADHE,RAVI V HOSMANI

5 right in law in allowing deduction claimed towards bad and doubtful debts without making provision and without considering that section 36(1)(vii) and 36(1)(viia) are separate and independent, apart from that assesses’s claim under section 36(1)(vii) of the I.T. Act is limited to the amount which exceeds the credit balance of the provisions

THE PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX vs. M/S NIRANI SUGARS LTD.,

In the result, the impugned orders passed by

Bench: ALOK ARADHE,P.G.M.PATIL

1. THE PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, DR.B.R.AMBEDKAR ROAD, BELAGAVI. 2. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2, BELGAUM. ………..APPELLANTS (BY SRI.Y.V.RAVIRAJ, ADVOCATE) AND : M/S.NIRANI SUGARS LTD., 166, KULALI CROSS, JAMAKHANDI ROAD, MUDHOL, DISTRICT BAGALKOT-587 313, PAN : AABCN2166J. …..RESPONDENT (BY SRI.ASHOK A.KULKARNI AND SHRI.H.R.KAMBIYAVAR, ADVOCATES FOR RESPONDENT) THIS I.T.A. IS FILED UNDER SECTION 260A OF THE INCOME

THE PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX vs. M/S NIRANI SUGARS LTD.,

In the result, the impugned orders passed by

Bench: ALOK ARADHE,P.G.M.PATIL

1. THE PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, DR.B.R.AMBEDKAR ROAD, BELAGAVI. 2. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2, BELGAUM. ………..APPELLANTS (BY SRI.Y.V.RAVIRAJ, ADVOCATE) AND : M/S.NIRANI SUGARS LTD., 166, KULALI CROSS, JAMAKHANDI ROAD, MUDHOL, DISTRICT BAGALKOT-587 313, PAN : AABCN2166J. …..RESPONDENT (BY SRI.ASHOK A.KULKARNI AND SHRI.H.R.KAMBIYAVAR, ADVOCATES FOR RESPONDENT) THIS I.T.A. IS FILED UNDER SECTION 260A OF THE INCOME

M/S SAFINA HOTELS PRIVATE LIMITED vs. THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX

Appeal is allowed

Bench: S.SUJATHA,N.K.PATIL

disallowed the deduction while computing the income. In such situation, the Assessing Officer levying penalty under Section 271(1)(c) is contrary to the tenor of the provision which attracts only in cases of concealing of income or filing of inaccurate particulars. 5

COFFEEDAY GLOBAL LTD. vs. ADDITIONAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX

In the result, the orders dated 21

Bench: ALOK ARADHE,ASHOK S.KINAGI

1)(iii) which was brought into force with effect from 01.04.2004. (iv) In respect of claim for disallowance of processing and other charges, the matter was remitted to the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals). 4. The assessee thereafter filed a miscellaneous petition under Section 254(2) of the Act which was disposed of by an order dated

PR. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX vs. M/S AMALGAMATED BEAN COFFEE TRADING CO LTD

In the result, the orders dated 21

Bench: ALOK ARADHE,ASHOK S.KINAGI

1)(iii) which was brought into force with effect from 01.04.2004. (iv) In respect of claim for disallowance of processing and other charges, the matter was remitted to the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals). 4. The assessee thereafter filed a miscellaneous petition under Section 254(2) of the Act which was disposed of by an order dated

COFFEEDAY GLOBAL LTD. vs. ADDITIONAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX

In the result, the orders dated 21

Bench: ALOK ARADHE,ASHOK S.KINAGI

1)(iii) which was brought into force with effect from 01.04.2004. (iv) In respect of claim for disallowance of processing and other charges, the matter was remitted to the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals). 4. The assessee thereafter filed a miscellaneous petition under Section 254(2) of the Act which was disposed of by an order dated

PR. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-2 vs. M/S.J.J.GLASTRONICS PVT LTD

The appeal stands dismissed

Bench: S.SUJATHA,J.M.KHAZI

1(f) to Section 115JB(2) in a right perspective. Referring to the said provision it was submitted that the amount or amounts of expenditure relatable to any income to which Section 10 other than the provisions contained in clause (38) thereof or Section 11 or Section 12 apply has to be considered for the purpose of Section 115JB

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

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

Section 35(1)(i) also came to be disallowed. Said order of assessment dated 31.01.2013 is impugned in the present writ petition. 3. I have heard the arguments of Sriyuths N Venkataraman, learned Senior counsel appearing on 5

THE PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER vs. M/S OBULAPURAM MINING

Bench: K.SOMASHEKAR,UMESH M ADIGA

Section 37(1) is attracted without appreciation the fact that the said Explanation is concerned with the nature of expenditure and not that of business, and further that the issue whether the allegation of the illegal mining is true or not is before the Competent Court for a decision and therefore it is premature for the lower authorities to decide