M/S SWAN SILK PRIVATE LIMITED vs. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX

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

Bench: ALOK ARADHE,HEMANT CHANDANGOUDAR

50% of foreign travel expenses - Rs.37.18,705/-. (d) Disallowance under Section 40(a)(iia) of the Act- Rs.96,247/-. 3. The assessee

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 purported to be under Section 263 of the Act is totally untenable, as such, a jurisdiction is only available when the assessment order is both erroneous and prejudicial to the interests of the Revenue. According

M/S KHODAY INDIA LTD vs. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX

In the result, the orders passed by the Assessing

Bench: ALOK ARADHE,HEMANT CHANDANGOUDAR

50% of sales promotion expenses, disallowance under Section 14A read with Rule 8D of the Rules, disallowance of interest on advance

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

The appeals are dismissed

Bench: SATISH CHANDRA SHARMA,SURAJ GOVINDARAJ

disallowed the claim, on an appeal filed by the Assessee, the Commissioner, Income-tax (Appeals) CIT(A) accepted the Assessee’s I.T.A. NO.141 OF 2020 c/w I.T.A. NO.151 OF 2020 48 contention and held that the Assessee’s employee would come within the purview of Section 2(s) of the ID Act. This aspect was not challenged by the Revenue

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 14-A of the Act in a sum of Rs.41,28,225/- and provision for ex- gratia Rs.18,90,000/-. The total disallowance of privilege fee is as follows: Writ Petition Number Assessment Year Privilege Fee 12872/2013 2010-2011 Rs.570,14,37,000/- 14687/2014 2011-2012 Rs.695,14,70,000/- 15910/2015 2012-2013 Rs.829,41,58,944/- 17514/2015

ESSILOR INDIA PVT LTD vs. THE DEPUTY

The appeal is disposed of

Bench: ALOK ARADHE,SHIVASHANKAR AMARANNAVAR

50% shares. The assessee filed its return of income for assessment Year 2008- 09 in which assessee claimed the aforesaid dividend income which was received during assessment year 2008-09 as exempt under Section 10(34) of the Act. The Assessing Officer passed an order of assessment dated 28.10.2010 and disallowed

THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, vs. M/S CORPORATION BANK

In the result, the third substantial question of law is also answered

Bench: ALOK ARADHE,H.T. NARENDRA PRASAD

50,750/- was declared. Thereafter, a revised return was filed on 23.12.2011 by which income of Rs.1366,54,08,250/- was declared. The revised return was processed under Section 143(1) of the Act o 15.06.2012 and a refund of 4 Rs.133,39,33,970/- was granted. Subsequently, the assessee filed a second revised return on 11.01.2013 in which income

THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX vs. M/S VESESH INFOTECHNICS LIMITEDD

Bench: B.MANOHAR,K.SREEDHAR RAO

Section 80-IA was disallowed. 4. For the assessment year 2000-2001, the assessee filed the Income Tax returns on 30-11-2000 declaring the total income of Rs.1,11,76,800/- and claiming deduction of Rs.1,50

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

50,32,504/- to the income disclosed by the assessee and also made disallowances under Section 40(a)(i)(a) of the Act. Thus

ESSILOR INDIA PVT LTD vs. THE DEPUTY

In the result, the order passed by the Tribunal dated 07

Bench: ALOK ARADHE,SHIVASHANKAR AMARANNAVAR

50% of the shares during the assessment year 2007-08. The assessee filed its return of income where the aforesaid dividend income was claimed as exempt under Section 10(34) of the Act. The Assessing officer passed an order of assessment dated 28.10.2010 and disallowed

THE PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER vs. M/S OBULAPURAM MINING

Bench: K.SOMASHEKAR,UMESH M ADIGA

50 associated enterprise unless the criteria specified in sub-sec (2) are fulfilled."" The resultant of the amendment is thus explained that unless the requirements of sub-sec. (2) are fulfilled, the sub- section (1) cannot be applied at all. This implies that in order to constitute a relationship of an AE, the parameters laid down in both sub- sections

SRI N GOVINDARAJU vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER

Appeal stands disposed of

Bench: S.SUJATHA,VINEET SARAN

50% of expenses on transfer claimed by the assessee. Besides this, certain other disallowances were also made by the Assessing Officer. Challenging the same, the assessee filed an appeal before the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), who granted certain relief, but confirmed the reopening of assessment under section

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

disallowed the privilege fee of Rs.3,50,00,000/- under Section 43B of the Act and also disallowed a sum of Rs.55

SHRI. SHANKARLAL GILADA vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER,

Bench: G.NARENDAR,M.NAGAPRASANNA

Section 14-A of the Act and holding that disallowance under 14-A can be invoked only if there is nexus between the borrowed funds which bear interest and investment from the borrowed funds to the extent of such investment made from the borrowed funds. The Apex Court at paragraphs 40 to 50

THE PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER vs. M/S OBULAPURAM MINING

Bench: K.SOMASHEKAR,UMESH M ADIGA

Section 37 of the I.T. Act. The claim of expenditure on Helicopters was disallowed to an extent of 50% as having

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 36(1)(iii) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (for short 'Act') and added it to the 2 125 taxmann.com 164 (Karnataka) 3 Assessing Year - 5 - ITA No. 297 of 2017 Income. The CIT(A)4 has deleted the said addition and ITAT has confirmed the view taken by the CIT(A). 7. Shri. Sanmathi submitted that the Assessee

THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX vs. INDUSTRIAL HYDRAULICS PVT LTD

In the result, this appeal is allowed

Bench: B.S PATIL,P.S.DINESH KUMAR

Section 50-B of the Act and disallowed the deduction claimed by the assessee under Section 80-IA of the Act and accordingly

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