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

The appeals are dismissed

Bench: SATISH CHANDRA SHARMA,SURAJ GOVINDARAJ

disallowance of Rs.7,57,22,069 made under section 80JJAA of the Act by holding that the employees in software

WEST PALM DEVELOPMENTS LLP vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF

In the result, the order dated 14

Bench: ALOK ARADHE,ANANT RAMANATH HEGDE

Section 57(iii) of the Act. The return of income was taken up for scrutiny assessment and the Assessing Officer passed an order on 30.11.2011 making a disallowance

SMT. RAJAGOPAL PRATHIBA vs. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX

The appeal is allowed in part

Bench: S.SUJATHA,RAVI V HOSMANI

disallowing expenditure incurred from other sources under Section 57 (iii) of the Act to the extent of Rs.38,12,047/-. The assessing

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

57 years, No.78, Seethalakshmi Towers, Mission Road, Bangalore 560 027. …PETITIONER (By Shri A. Shankar, Shri M. Lava and Shri S. Annamalai, Advocates ) 2 AND: 1. The Commissioner of Income-Tax, Bangalore 560 001, C.R.Building, Queens Road, Bangalore 560 001. 2. The Deputy Commissioner of Income-Tax, Circle-11(5), R.P.Bhavan, Opposite Reserve Bank of India, Nrupathunga Road, Bangalore

PR. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX - 4 vs. M/S STERLING DEVELOPERS

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

Bench: SATISH CHANDRA SHARMA,S VISHWAJITH SHETTY

57,900/- by making certain additions and disallowances. The Assessing Officer also made a disallowance under Section 14A of the Act of Rs.4

PR. COMMISSIONER OF vs. M/S STERLING DEVELOPERS

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

Bench: SATISH CHANDRA SHARMA,SURAJ GOVINDARAJ

57,900/- by making certain additions and disallowances. The Assessing Officer also made a disallowance under Section 14A of the Act of Rs.4

M/S THE TOTGARS CO-OPERATIVE SALE SOCIETY LTD., vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER

In the result, we pass the following:

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

disallowing deduction in respect of cost of funds and proportionate administrative and other expenditure in respect of funds placed in deposit is set aside. (iii) All other contentions urged by the parties are kept open. (iv) Matter is remanded to the adjudicating authority for quantification of the cost incurred by the appellant and deduction thereof under Section 57

THE PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER vs. M/S OBULAPURAM MINING

Bench: K.SOMASHEKAR,UMESH M ADIGA

57,10,000 Mts., out of which 22,81,141 Mts, was held to be illegal and the illegal production worked out to 40% of the total production. While completing the assessment, for the reasons given in detail, the assessing authority disallowed 40% of the total expenditure claimed towards transportation expenses at Rs.387,76,69,992/- under Section

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

disallowance made under Section 14A of the Act as the assessee had not incurred any exempt income. In support of aforesaid submissions, reliance has been placed on the decision of the Supreme Court in 'CIT Vs. CHETTINAD LOGISTICS (P) LTD.' (2018) 95 TAXMANN.COM 250 (SC), decisions of Madras High Court in 'CIT Vs. CHITTANAD LOGISTICS (P) LTD.' (2017) 80 TAXMANN.COM

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

disallowance made under Section 14A of the Act of Rs.13,80,57,241/- (Rs.18,74,89,400/- less Rs.4,94,32,159/- and (ii) Disallowance

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

Bench: B.MANOHAR,K.SREEDHAR RAO

57,672/- under Section 80-IB. The case was selected for scrutiny under Section 143(3) of the Act and notice under Section 143(2) was issued. The Assessing Authority disallowed

M/S.M K AGROTECH PRIVATE LTD vs. THE ADDL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX

The appeal is allowed

Bench: The Hon'Ble Mr. Justice Ravi Malimath

57,416/-. Questioning the same, an appeal was filed before the Tribunal, which was dismissed. Hence, this appeal. 2. By the order dated 12-4-2010, the appeal was admitted to consider the following substantial question of law: Whether the Tribunal was justified in law in confirming the disallowance of 4 Rs.27,31,483/- under section

THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX vs. M/S AGRICULTURAL PRODUCE MARKET COMMITTEE

Bench: S.SUJATHA,VINEET KOTHARI

disallow the claim of Depreciation under Section 32 of the Act in the hands of the Assessee, being a Charitable Trust and [ii] requirement to comply with the procedure under Section 11[2] of the Act, if the accumulated income not spent for charitable purpose exceeded 15% of the income during the year. 3. The learned Tribunal found that

THE PR.COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIT (A) vs. M/S AGRICULTURAL PRODUCE MARKET COMMITTEE

Bench: S.SUJATHA,VINEET KOTHARI

disallow the claim of Depreciation under Section 32 of the Act in the hands of the Assessee, being a Charitable Trust and [ii] requirement to comply with the procedure under Section 11[2] of the Act, if the accumulated income not spent for charitable purpose exceeded 15% of the income during the year. 3. The learned Tribunal found that

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 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

PR COMMISSIONER OF vs. KARNATAKA STATE INDUSTRIAL INFRASTRUCTURE

In the result, we find no merit in the

Bench: ALOK ARADHE,H.T. NARENDRA PRASAD

disallowances under Section 14A of the Act for a sum of Rs.1,76,00,000/- and difference of Rs.1,57