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

Bench: S.SUJATHA,S VISHWAJITH SHETTY

63 YEARS ...APPELLANT (BY SRI BALRAM R. RAO, ADV.) AND : 1 . THE PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE, C.R.BUILDING, QUEENS ROAD, - 4 - BANGALORE-560001 2 . THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2(2), C.R.BUILDING, QUEENS ROAD, BANGALORE-560001 …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI K.V.ARAVIND, ADV.) THIS INCOME TAX APPEAL IS FILED UNDER SECTION 260-A OF INCOME

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

Bench: S.SUJATHA,S VISHWAJITH SHETTY

63 YEARS ...APPELLANT (BY SRI BALRAM R. RAO, ADV.) AND : 1 . THE PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE, C.R.BUILDING, QUEENS ROAD, - 4 - BANGALORE-560001 2 . THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2(2), C.R.BUILDING, QUEENS ROAD, BANGALORE-560001 …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI K.V.ARAVIND, ADV.) THIS INCOME TAX APPEAL IS FILED UNDER SECTION 260-A OF INCOME

M/S DELHI INTERNATIONAL vs. THE PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER

Bench: S.SUJATHA,S VISHWAJITH SHETTY

63 YEARS ...APPELLANT (BY SRI BALRAM R. RAO, ADV.) AND : 1 . THE PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE, C.R.BUILDING, QUEENS ROAD, - 4 - BANGALORE-560001 2 . THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2(2), C.R.BUILDING, QUEENS ROAD, BANGALORE-560001 …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI K.V.ARAVIND, ADV.) THIS INCOME TAX APPEAL IS FILED UNDER SECTION 260-A OF INCOME

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

Bench: S.SUJATHA,S VISHWAJITH SHETTY

63 YEARS ...APPELLANT (BY SRI BALRAM R. RAO, ADV.) AND : 1 . THE PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE, C.R.BUILDING, QUEENS ROAD, - 4 - BANGALORE-560001 2 . THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2(2), C.R.BUILDING, QUEENS ROAD, BANGALORE-560001 …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI K.V.ARAVIND, ADV.) THIS INCOME TAX APPEAL IS FILED UNDER SECTION 260-A OF INCOME

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

Bench: S.SUJATHA,S VISHWAJITH SHETTY

63 YEARS ...APPELLANT (BY SRI BALRAM R. RAO, ADV.) AND : 1 . THE PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE, C.R.BUILDING, QUEENS ROAD, - 4 - BANGALORE-560001 2 . THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2(2), C.R.BUILDING, QUEENS ROAD, BANGALORE-560001 …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI K.V.ARAVIND, ADV.) THIS INCOME TAX APPEAL IS FILED UNDER SECTION 260-A OF INCOME

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

Section 35(2AB) in respect of Research and Development expenditure in a sum of ` 89,35,48,193/-, a sum of ` 48,41,82,071/- was disallowed and same came to be added to the income of assessee-company. Further, a sum of `2,63

THE PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER vs. M/S OBULAPURAM MINING

Bench: K.SOMASHEKAR,UMESH M ADIGA

disallowances. 55. However, keeping in view the contention made by the learned Standing Counsel Shri Y.V. Raviraj for the appellant / Revenue and so also the learned counsel Shri Mayank Jain for the respondent / Assessee, at the cost of repetition, it is relevant to state that the counsel for the respondent / Assessee had relied the judgment of THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME

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

The appeal is disposed of

Bench: ALOK ARADHE,H.T. NARENDRA PRASAD

disallowance of Rs.1,82,83,210/- under Section 40(a)(ia) of the Act is contrary to law and is covered against the revenue by decision of the Supreme Court in CIT VS. CALCUTTA EXPORT COMPANY supra. It also pointed out that the assessee had produced all details and documents to demonstrate the incurrence and allowability of expenditure under Section

XIAOMI TECHNOLOGY INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX

In the result, I pass the following:

Bench: The Hon'Ble Mr.Justice S.R.Krishna Kumar

disallowed. On 10.08.2022, petitioner submitted a detailed response along with documents and contested the said Notice and proceedings. - 6 - 2.3 On 11.08.2022, upon obtaining approval from the 3rd respondent, the 1st respondent passed the impugned order under Section 281B of the I.T.Act provisionally attaching the subject fixed deposits of the petitioner in a sum of INR 3,700 crores

M/S. EVERGREEN HARDWARE STORES vs. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF

Appeal is allowed

Bench: P.S.DINESH KUMAR,UMESH M ADIGA

Section 45(4) of the IT Act as long term Capital gains, is not sustainable. 13. It was argued by Shri. Shankar that by applying the same logic, the Assessing Officer has 4 (1984)17 Taxmann. 330 KAR (para 4) I.T.A No.201/2017 12 added short-term Capital gains at 30% on the building which was constructed on the plot owned

CGI INFORMATION SYSTEMS vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF

Appeals are allowed

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

disallowance of deduction under Section 10A of the IT Act for A.Y.1998-949, the AO had granted the relief under Section 80HHE for the subsequent two years. 3 Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeal) - 7 - 6. Placing reliance on Saurashtra Cement & Chemical Industries Ltd., Vs. CIT4, Direct Information (P.) Ltd. Vs.Income-tax Officer5 and Commissioner of Income- tax-2 Vs. Western Outdoor

CGI INFORMATION SYSTEMS vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER

Appeals are allowed

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

disallowance of deduction under Section 10A of the IT Act for A.Y.1998-949, the AO had granted the relief under Section 80HHE for the subsequent two years. 3 Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeal) - 7 - 6. Placing reliance on Saurashtra Cement & Chemical Industries Ltd., Vs. CIT4, Direct Information (P.) Ltd. Vs.Income-tax Officer5 and Commissioner of Income- tax-2 Vs. Western Outdoor

CGI INFORMATION SYSTEMS vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER

Appeals are allowed

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

disallowance of deduction under Section 10A of the IT Act for A.Y.1998-949, the AO had granted the relief under Section 80HHE for the subsequent two years. 3 Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeal) - 7 - 6. Placing reliance on Saurashtra Cement & Chemical Industries Ltd., Vs. CIT4, Direct Information (P.) Ltd. Vs.Income-tax Officer5 and Commissioner of Income- tax-2 Vs. Western Outdoor

M/S NAM ESTATES PVT. LTD. vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER

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

Bench: ALOK ARADHE,H.T. NARENDRA PRASAD

disallowance of business expenditure. In the aforesaid factual background, the instant appeal has been filed. 4. Learned counsel for the assessee submitted that the purpose and intent of Section 40A(3) is to curb tax evasion by establishing the identity of the parties and the genuineness of the transaction. It is further submitted that the Tribunal has erroneously invoked

ANTONY PARAKAL KURIAN vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX

Appeal is allowed in part

Bench: S.SUJATHA,S RACHAIAH

63 YEARS, D 83, PRESTIGE OZONE, WHITEFIELD MAIN ROAD, VARTHUR KODI, BANGALORE-560 066, PAN: AFMPK 3991 B ...APPELLANT (BY SRI SUDHEENDRA B.R., ADV.) AND : ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE-5(3) (1), BANGALORE, BMTC BUILDING, 80 FEET ROAD, KORAMANGALA 6TH BLOCK, BENGALURU-560 095. …RESPONDENT (BY SRI K.V.ARAVIND, ADV.) THIS INCOME TAX APPEAL IS FILED UNDER SECTION

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