HINDUSTAN AERONAUTICS LIMITED vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER

In the result, the order of the

Bench: ALOK ARADHE,H.T. NARENDRA PRASAD

55,000/- incurred towards research and development is capital in nature? (ii) the Tribunal was correct in upholding the disallowance made under Section

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

55,000/- incurred towards research and development is capital in nature? (ii) the Tribunal was correct in upholding the disallowance made under Section

THE PR.COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIT(A) vs. M/S. ADVAITH MOTORS PVT LTD.,

Bench: S.SUJATHA,VINEET KOTHARI

disallowance in terms of Section 14A of the Act r/w 8D of the Rules could exceed the expenditure computed under Rule-8D of the Rules by the assessee to the extent of Rs.56,55

THE PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER vs. M/S OBULAPURAM MINING

Bench: K.SOMASHEKAR,UMESH M ADIGA

Section 37(1) of 61 the I.T. Act made declaration of Rs.3/- crores to cover up the expenses which calls for disallowances. 55

THE PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CIT(A) vs. SHRI.S.S. BAKKESH

In the result, both the appeals filed by the Revenue are

Bench: D K SINGH,VENKATESH NAIK T

disallowances like sundry creditors of Rs.18,00,000/-, interest under Section 14A of the Act at Rs.50,55,701/-, disallowance

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

The appeal is disposed of

Bench: ALOK ARADHE,H.T. NARENDRA PRASAD

Section 143(2) of the Act on 13.07.2007. In response to the aforesaid notice, the assessee produced book of accounts and other necessary documents. The assessing officer determined the total income of the assessee as Rs.2,55,15,140/- by disallowing

GMR INFRASTRUCTURE LIMITED vs. THE DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX

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

Bench: ALOK ARADHE,HEMANT CHANDANGOUDAR

55,000/- was granted. Thereafter, a search and seizure operation under Section 132 of the Act was initiated on 11.10.2012 and a notice under Section 153A of the Act was issued on 4 17.02.2014. The appellant filed a letter requesting to treat the original return of income filed on 31.10.2017 under Section 139(1) of the Act as returned income

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

Bench: B.MANOHAR,K.SREEDHAR RAO

disallowing the deduction under Section 80-IB for the assessment year 2000-2001 and 2001-2002 and also litigation expenditure of Rs.19,00,000/-, the assessee preferred an appeal before the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-III, Bangalore contending that the order passed by the Assessing Authority and also reopening 8 the assessment for the assessment year

M/S. B FOURESS (P) LIMITED vs. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER

In the result, the order dated

Bench: ALOK ARADHE,R. NATARAJ

disallowed by an order dated 31.01.2013 under Section 143(3) of the Act and total income of Rs.22,47,55

SRI N GOVINDARAJU vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER

Appeal stands disposed of

Bench: S.SUJATHA,VINEET SARAN

disallowance of expenditure, were upheld by the Tribunal. Being aggrieved by the said order of the Tribunal, this appeal has been filed, which has been admitted on the following four substantial questions of law: 6 (1) Whether the Tribunal was correct in upholding re- assessment proceedings, when the reason recorded for re-opening of assessment under S.147 of Act itself

M/S BANGALORE PHARMACEUTICAL vs. DY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX

Appeal is disposed of;

Bench: P.S.DINESH KUMAR,T.G. SHIVASHANKARE GOWDA

Section 143(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 ('the Act' for short) disallowing certain exemptions claimed by the assessee. Feeling aggrieved, assessee - 4 - NC: 2023:KHC:20115-DB ITA No. 24 of 2018 challenged AO's order before CIT(A)-I1, Bangalore, in I.T.A.No.137/DC-11(2)/A-I/13-14 and it was allowed in part. Both assessee and Revenue challenged

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 ARUBA NETWORKS INDIA

In the result, the petition stands dismissed

Bench: Going To The Merits Of The Case & Consequently Whether Or Not The Tribunal’S Order Is Vitiated & Hence Unsustainable In Law?

55[1] of the Karnataka Agricultural Income Tax Act, 1957 ['Act' for short] assailing the order passed by the Karnataka Appellate Tribunal at Bengaluru ['Tribunal’ for short] in STA No.343/2012 relating to the assessment year 2010-11. 2. The petition was admitted by this Court to consider the following questions of law: “1. Whether on the facts and circumstances

M/S HMA DATA SYSTEM P LTD., vs. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX

Bench: ARAVIND KUMAR,MOHAN M. SHANTANAGOUDAR

Section 143(3) by order dated 22.12.2006, whereunder disallowances to the tune of `2,67,85,610/- was made. During the previous year relevant to the assessment year, assessee sold 50,000 shares of M/s.Diebold HMA Pvt. Ltd., said to have been acquired by it during the year 1992-93 for a total consideration of `21,55

THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX vs. M/S HMA DATA SYSTEMS P LTD.,

Bench: ARAVIND KUMAR,MOHAN M. SHANTANAGOUDAR

Section 143(3) by order dated 22.12.2006, whereunder disallowances to the tune of `2,67,85,610/- was made. During the previous year relevant to the assessment year, assessee sold 50,000 shares of M/s.Diebold HMA Pvt. Ltd., said to have been acquired by it during the year 1992-93 for a total consideration of `21,55

M/S SUTURES INDIA (P) LTD vs. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX

In the result, the common order passed by the

Bench: ALOK ARADHE,HEMANT CHANDANGOUDAR

55,94,570/- after claiming deduction under Section 10B of the Act to the tune of Rs.8,79,18,006/-. The return was selected for scrutiny. The Assessing Officer by orders dated 23.12.2011 and 27.02.2013 passed under Section 143(3) of the Act for Assessment Years 2009-10 and 2010-11 respectively completed the assessment and disallowed