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

Disallowance under Section 40(a)(i): Particulars Disputed Income Disputed tax [i.e., tax @ 33.99% on disputed income] Payable under DTVSV Act @ 50% of tax As per Petitioner 37,28,12,027 12,67,18,808 6

BIOCON LIMITED vs. THE DEPUTY

In the result, the impugned order dated 30

Bench: ALOK ARADHE,R. NATARAJ

disallowance. It is further submitted that Section 14A applies only to exempt incomes and since Section 10B of the Act is not an exemption provision as has been held by the Supreme Court in CIT Vs. YOKOGAWA LIMITED, supra, the aforesaid provision does not apply to the fact situation of the case. In support of aforesaid submission, reliance has been

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 and this is clearly contrary to law. 6. In view of the above discussion, the assessee's reply cannot be accepted. 7. In Cochin International Airport Ltd. (92 taxmann.com 277), the Hon'ble ITAT Cochin have explained the provisions of section

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

The appeals are dismissed

Bench: SATISH CHANDRA SHARMA,SURAJ GOVINDARAJ

disallowed and added back to the total income of the Assessee under Section 40(a)(ia) on the ground that the workmen as regards whom the Assessee had sought for deduction under Section 80JJ(AA) had not completed 300 days of employment during the previous year, the incentive under Section I.T.A. NO.141 OF 2020 c/w I.T.A. NO.151 OF 2020 6

PR.COMMISSIONER OF INCOMETAX-2 vs. M/S.EYGBS (INDIA) PVT LTD

Bench: CHIEF JUSTICE,C M JOSHI

disallowance of Section 10AA of the Act in respect of the TP adjustments made pursuant to the APA entered into by the assessee with the Central Board of Direct Taxes [CBDT]. The second set of questions – question nos. 5 and 6

COFFEEDAY GLOBAL LTD. vs. ADDITIONAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX

In the result, the orders dated 21

Bench: ALOK ARADHE,ASHOK S.KINAGI

disallowance of Rs.7,97,70,326/- as interest on capital attributable to capital work in progress relying on the proviso to Section 36(1)(iii) when the said proviso was inapplicable to the case of the appellant and no part of the 6

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

disallowance of Rs.7,97,70,326/- as interest on capital attributable to capital work in progress relying on the proviso to Section 36(1)(iii) when the said proviso was inapplicable to the case of the appellant and no part of the 6

COFFEEDAY GLOBAL LTD. vs. ADDITIONAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX

In the result, the orders dated 21

Bench: ALOK ARADHE,ASHOK S.KINAGI

disallowance of Rs.7,97,70,326/- as interest on capital attributable to capital work in progress relying on the proviso to Section 36(1)(iii) when the said proviso was inapplicable to the case of the appellant and no part of the 6

THE PR. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, vs. M/S. DELHI INTERNATIONAL AIRPORT PVT. LTD.,

Bench: S.SUJATHA,S VISHWAJITH SHETTY

disallowing the claim under section 40(a)(ia) of the Act. 6. Learned counsel appearing for the Revenue, justifying the impugned

M/S DELHI INTERNATIONAL vs. THE PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER

Bench: S.SUJATHA,S VISHWAJITH SHETTY

disallowing the claim under section 40(a)(ia) of the Act. 6. Learned counsel appearing for the Revenue, justifying the impugned

M/S DELHI INTERNATIONAL AIRPORT LTD vs. THE PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX

Bench: S.SUJATHA,S VISHWAJITH SHETTY

disallowing the claim under section 40(a)(ia) of the Act. 6. Learned counsel appearing for the Revenue, justifying the impugned

THE PR. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, vs. M/S. DELHI INTERNATIONAL AIRPORT PVT. LTD.

Bench: S.SUJATHA,S VISHWAJITH SHETTY

disallowing the claim under section 40(a)(ia) of the Act. 6. Learned counsel appearing for the Revenue, justifying the impugned

M/S DELHI INTERNATIONAL AIRPORT LTD vs. THE PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX

Bench: S.SUJATHA,S VISHWAJITH SHETTY

disallowing the claim under section 40(a)(ia) of the Act. 6. Learned counsel appearing for the Revenue, justifying the impugned

THE PR. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, vs. M/S. DELHI INTERNATIONAL AIRPORT PVT. LTD.,

Bench: S.SUJATHA,S VISHWAJITH SHETTY

disallowing the claim under section 40(a)(ia) of the Act. 6. Learned counsel appearing for the Revenue, justifying the impugned

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

The appeal stands dismissed

Bench: S.SUJATHA,J.M.KHAZI

disallowance under Section 14A of the Act for determining book profit under Section 115JB was dealt with, in extenso by the Delhi ITAT Bench in the case of Vireet Investment Private Ltd., supra and the relevant portion of the said decision has been quoted by the Tribunal in the order impugned which reads thus:- - 11 - "6

COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (CENTRAL) vs. M/S. GMR ENERGY LTD

In the result, the appeal is dismissed

Bench: ALOK ARADHE,HEMANT CHANDANGOUDAR

disallowance under Section 6 14A of the Act made by the assessee to the extent it was rejected was not accepted

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

6 2nd Floor, TTMC A Block, BMTC Complex, K.H.Road, Shantinagar, Bangalore 560 001. …RESPONDENTS (By Shri Jeevan J Neeralgi, Advocate for Respondent Nos. 1and 2; Shri Madhusudhan R Naik, Advocate General for Shri S.V.Giri Kumar, Additional Government Advocate for Respondent Nos. 3 and 4) This Writ Petition filed under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India praying

ESSILOR INDIA PVT LTD vs. THE DEPUTY

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

Bench: ALOK ARADHE,SHIVASHANKAR AMARANNAVAR

6 (3) of Section 14A of the Act were inserted by Finance Act 2006 with effect from 01.04.2007. The amount of disallowance