THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX vs. M/S WIPRO LTD

The appeals stand disposed of, accordingly

Bench: N.KUMAR,B.SREENIVASE GOWDA

6. The assessee-company filed its return of income for the assessment year 2002-03 on 31.10.2002 disclosing a total income of Rs.112,73,48,342/- after claiming deduction u/s 10A of the Act to the extent of Rs.808,17,76,941/-. The case was selected for scrutiny and notice u/s 143(2) was issued on 03.01.2003. Notice

COFFEEDAY GLOBAL LTD. vs. ADDITIONAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX

In the result, the orders dated 21

Bench: ALOK ARADHE,ASHOK S.KINAGI

Section 36(1)(iii) when the said proviso was inapplicable to the case of the appellant and no part of the 6 borrowed capital was utilized for investment in work in progress in any event? (iii) The tribunal was correct in upholding the disallowance

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

Section 36(1)(iii) when the said proviso was inapplicable to the case of the appellant and no part of the 6 borrowed capital was utilized for investment in work in progress in any event? (iii) The tribunal was correct in upholding the disallowance

COFFEEDAY GLOBAL LTD. vs. ADDITIONAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX

In the result, the orders dated 21

Bench: ALOK ARADHE,ASHOK S.KINAGI

Section 36(1)(iii) when the said proviso was inapplicable to the case of the appellant and no part of the 6 borrowed capital was utilized for investment in work in progress in any event? (iii) The tribunal was correct in upholding the disallowance

PR. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX vs. SMT. G. LAKSHMI ARUNA

Bench: K.SOMASHEKAR,UMESH M ADIGA

Disallowed (Rs.) (I) (II) (III) 2009-10 28,76,23,325 9,95,82,217 2010-11 2,29,05,056 1,46,91,363 Of these, the Assessing Officer found that to the extent given in column 3 above, the appellant was unable to substantiate the said expense claimed before the Assessing Officer. 16. In respect of assessment

THE PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER vs. M/S OBULAPURAM MINING

Bench: K.SOMASHEKAR,UMESH M ADIGA

6 only because one of the directors of the assessee company and of GLATIPL is common, Section 93CA is not applicable. The Tribunal also held that in order to constitute a relationship of an AE, the parameters laid down in both subsections (1) and (2) should be fulfilled. As per explanation, amendment carried out in sub-section (2) of section

PR. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX vs. SHRI. GALI JANARDHANA REDDY

Bench: K.SOMASHEKAR,UMESH M ADIGA

disallowed(Rs) (I) (II) (III) 2009-10 28,76,23,325 9,95,82,217 2010-11 2,29,05,056 1,46,91,363 15. Of these the assessing officer found that to the extent given in column (III) above, the appellant was unable to substantiate the said expenses claimed before the assessing officer. 16.In respect of assessment

COFFEE DAY GLOBAL LIMITED vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX

The appeal is allowed

Bench: SATISH CHANDRA SHARMA,R. NATARAJ

disallowance of interest on capital as attributable to capital work-in-progress relying on the proviso to Section 36(1)(iii) when the said proviso was inapplicable to 5 the case of the appellant and no part of the borrowed capital was utilized for investment in work in progress in any event? 4. The learned counsel for the appellant contended

COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-III vs. M/S SYNDICATE BANK

The appeals are disposed of

Bench: ALOK ARADHE,RAVI V HOSMANI

III C.R. BUILDING, QUEENS ROAD BANGALORE. 2. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE-1, CANARA TOWERS MISSION HOSPITAL ROAD UDUPI-576101, MANGALORE. 3. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE-I, UDUPI-576101. ... APPELLANTS (By Sri. E.I. SANMATHI, ADV.) AND: M/S. SYNDICATE BANK H.O. ACCOUNTS DEPT. MANIPAL. ... RESPONDENT (By Sri. T. SURYANARAYANA RAO, ADV.) - - - 3 THIS I.T.A. IS FILED U/S.260-A

M/S SAFINA HOTELS PRIVATE LIMITED vs. THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX

Appeal is allowed

Bench: S.SUJATHA,N.K.PATIL

III Commissionerate C R Building Queens Road Bangalore-560 001. 2. The Deputy Commissioneer of Income-tax Circle 12(3) No.14/3-A, 3Rd Floor Rashtrothana Bhavan Nrupathunga Road Bangalore-560 001. …Respondents (By Sri.Jeevan.J.Neeralgi, Advocate) 2 This Appeal is filed under Section 260-A of Income-tax Act 1961, to set aside the order passed by the ITAT, “A” Bench, Bangalore

M/S TEJAS NETWORKS LIMITED vs. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX

In the result, I proceed to pass the following:

Bench: The Hon’Ble Mr.Justice Aravind Kumar

6(1B) of the Income Tax Rules, 1961 is the Secretary, Department of Scientific and Industrial Research. 19. A perusal of the above rule would clearly indicate that the prescribed authority for the purposes of sub-section (1) of Section 35(2AB) is the Secretary, Department of Scientific and Industrial Research. Sub- section (3) of the Section 35(2AB) would

M/S PADMINI PRODUCTS (P) LTD., vs. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX

In the result, the aforesaid

Bench: ALOK ARADHE,H.T. NARENDRA PRASAD

iii) Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Honourable ITAT was right in law in upholding the action of the Learned Respondent in invoking 5th proviso to Section 32(1) of the IT Act in the assessment years subsequent to the assessment year in which the succession took place? (iv) Whether on the facts

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

6. The disallowance made by the Assessing Officer for the relevant assessment years are in respect of the following: i) Depreciation on Elevators, DG Set and other such items (for all assessment years) ii) Professional charges (for assessment year 2004-05) iii) Interest expenses (for assessment year 2004-05) iv) Disallowance of interest capitalized (for assessment years

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

6. The disallowance made by the Assessing Officer for the relevant assessment years are in respect of the following: i) Depreciation on Elevators, DG Set and other such items (for all assessment years) ii) Professional charges (for assessment year 2004-05) iii) Interest expenses (for assessment year 2004-05) iv) Disallowance of interest capitalized (for assessment years

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

6. The disallowance made by the Assessing Officer for the relevant assessment years are in respect of the following: i) Depreciation on Elevators, DG Set and other such items (for all assessment years) ii) Professional charges (for assessment year 2004-05) iii) Interest expenses (for assessment year 2004-05) iv) Disallowance of interest capitalized (for assessment years

THE PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER vs. M/S OBULAPURAM MINING

Bench: K.SOMASHEKAR,UMESH M ADIGA

iii) Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal is justified in law in holding that. Explanation-1 to section 37 is not attracted to case of the assessee respondent on the issue of disallowance of expenditure relating to illegal mining in spite of the conclusive findings as to the illegal mining carried

THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX vs. M/S LUWA INDIA PVT LTD

Bench: RAVI MALIMATH,N.KUMAR

III to section 194C; (v) “rent” shall have the same meaning as in clause (i) to the Explanation to section 194-I; (vi) “royalty” shall have the same meaning as in Explanation 2 to clause (vi) of sub- section (1) of section 9; By Finance Act, 2010, the said provision is substituted by the following: Substituted by the Finance

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

Bench: CHIEF JUSTICE,C M JOSHI

iii) "Whether on facts and circumstances of the case, the Tribunal's order can be said as perverse in nature not apricating that the assessee hd not complied with conditions set out in Section 10AA to get the deduction under said section and further this amount being alleged as deemed income for the purposes of being part of business