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 143(3) of the Act for the assessment year 2012-13 wherein the Assessing Officer had disallowed the privilege fee of Rs.829,41,58

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

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

The appeal stands dismissed

Bench: S.SUJATHA,J.M.KHAZI

Section 115JB(2) while considering the book profits. The order of the Tribunal is perverse in not following the judgment rendered by the said Tribunal in the case of DCIT vs. Shobha Developers reported in 58 Taxmann.com 107 dated 09.01.2015, whereby it has been held that the disallowance

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 of providing back office support and data processing services to its customers. The Assessee had filed its return of income [ROI] for the AY 2015-16 and AY 2016-17 on 30.11.2015 and 14.10.2016 respectively. The Assessee had declared

THE PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER vs. M/S OBULAPURAM MINING

Bench: K.SOMASHEKAR,UMESH M ADIGA

Disallowance of Expenses under Explanation to section 37 (1) and in respect of third issue i.e. Addition made on account of sale 57 of Land, we set aside the order of CIT (A) on that issue and restore the matter to A.O. for a fresh decision with the same directions as were given by the tribunal

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

The appeal is disposed of

Bench: ALOK ARADHE,H.T. NARENDRA PRASAD

disallowing the business expenditure under Section 37(1) of the Act and passed an order under Section 153A read with Section 143(3) of the Act on 31.12.2007. 3. The assessee filed an appeal before the 5 Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals). The Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) by an order dated 30.03.2010 held that transportation expenses to the extent

PR,COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX vs. M/S SUBRAMANYA CONSTRUCTIONS

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

Bench: ALOK ARADHE,M.G.S. KAMAL

Section 143(1) of the Act. The case of the assessee was selected for scrutiny and the Assessing Officer concluded the assessment by an order dated 07.12.2012 and determined the total income of the assessee at Rs.9,02,58,727/- instead of Rs.4,06,68,720/- by making disallowance

PR. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX vs. M/S SUBRAMANYA CONSTRUCTIONS

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

Bench: ALOK ARADHE,M.G.S. KAMAL

Section 143(1) of the Act. The case of the assessee was selected for scrutiny and the Assessing Officer concluded the assessment by an order dated 07.12.2012 and determined the total income of the assessee at Rs.9,02,58,727/- instead of Rs.4,06,68,720/- by making disallowance

THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX vs. M/S HIMATSINGKA SEIDE LTD

The appeals are dismissed

Bench: B.V.NAGARATHNA,JAYANT PATEL

section 36(1)(iii) of the Act even when the assessing authority had rightly disallowed the same by holding that the assessee had advanced inter-corporate loans amounting to Rs.21,03,58

THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX vs. M/S HIMATSINGKA SEIDE LTD

The appeals are dismissed

Bench: B.V.NAGARATHNA,JAYANT PATEL

section 36(1)(iii) of the Act even when the assessing authority had rightly disallowed the same by holding that the assessee had advanced inter-corporate loans amounting to Rs.21,03,58

COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-III vs. M/S MPHASIS SOFTWARE AND SERVICES

The appeals stand dismissed

Bench: ARAVIND KUMAR,VINEET SARAN

58,39,507/- as deduction under Section 10A of the Act in respect of its Mumbai unit. The Assessing Officer, in its assessment order, disallowed

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

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 DIRECTOR OF INCOME TAX vs. INDIA HERITAGE FOUNDATION

The appeal is disposed of

Bench: ALOK ARADHE,H.T. NARENDRA PRASAD

disallow the deduction as claimed by the assessee under Section 80IB(10) of the Act and to carry out the assessment 5 afresh in accordance with law after affording an opportunity of hearing to the assessee. 3. Being aggrieved, the assessee filed an appeal before the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Tribunal’, for short). The Tribunal

COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-III vs. M/S WIPRO LIMITED

Bench: ALOK ARADHE,H.T. NARENDRA PRASAD

58,039/- on software imported even though the assessing authority had rightly disallowed the expenditure under section 40(a)(i) of IT Act as the assessee

TIMES VPL LIMITED vs. THE COMMISSIONR OF INCOME TAX

In the result, the order passed by the

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

58 YEARS, SON OF SRI CHARANTRIAH. ... APPELLANT (BY SRI. M.V.SESHACHALA, SENIOR COUNSEL FOR SRI. ARAVIND V.CHAVAN AND SRI. H.R.KAMBIYAVAR, ADVOCATES) AND THE COMMISSIONR OF INCOME TAX, C.R.BUILDING, NAVANAGAR, HUBLI-580025. ... RESPONDENT (BY SRI. Y.V.RAVIRAJ, ADVOCATE) 2 THIS I.T.A. IS FILED UNDER SECTION 260-A OF I.T. ACT, 1961, ARISING OUT OF ORDER DATED 31.01.2013 PASSED IN ITA NO.587/BANG/2012

M/S CANARA BANK BSCA SECTION vs. THE ASST COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE-11(2)

Bench: N.KUMAR,RATHNAKALA

58 years Son of Sri. T R RajagopaL ..APPELLANT (By Sri G. Sarangan Sr. Counsel for Sri S. Parthasarathi, Adv.) AND: The Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Range 11 (2) BANGALORE .. RESPONDENT (By Sri E.R. Indrakumar Sr. Counsel for Sri. E.I. Sanmathi,Adv.) IN I.T.A. NO.723 of 2007 BETWEEN: M/s. Canara Bank BSCA Section Head Office No.112, J C Road