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

The appeals are dismissed

Bench: SATISH CHANDRA SHARMA,SURAJ GOVINDARAJ

65 the payments could be claimed by the Assessee. At the outset, we are of the opinion that such a contention cannot be raised now by the Revenue. The contention of the Revenue before this Court is that Section 194-I of the Act was required to be invoked and deductions made at source, not having so done disallowance

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 order of the Tribunal submitted that, the Airlines Operators while paying Passenger Service Fees [PSF (SC & FC) were retaining the amount - 12 - of 2.5% of the invoice value on account of prompt payment by them to the assessee before

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 order of the Tribunal submitted that, the Airlines Operators while paying Passenger Service Fees [PSF (SC & FC) were retaining the amount - 12 - of 2.5% of the invoice value on account of prompt payment by them to the assessee before

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 order of the Tribunal submitted that, the Airlines Operators while paying Passenger Service Fees [PSF (SC & FC) were retaining the amount - 12 - of 2.5% of the invoice value on account of prompt payment by them to the assessee before

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 order of the Tribunal submitted that, the Airlines Operators while paying Passenger Service Fees [PSF (SC & FC) were retaining the amount - 12 - of 2.5% of the invoice value on account of prompt payment by them to the assessee before

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 order of the Tribunal submitted that, the Airlines Operators while paying Passenger Service Fees [PSF (SC & FC) were retaining the amount - 12 - of 2.5% of the invoice value on account of prompt payment by them to the assessee before

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 order of the Tribunal submitted that, the Airlines Operators while paying Passenger Service Fees [PSF (SC & FC) were retaining the amount - 12 - of 2.5% of the invoice value on account of prompt payment by them to the assessee before

M/S KARNATAKA STATE INDUSTRIAL AND INFRASTRUCTURE DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION LTD vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX

The appeal is disposed of

Bench: ALOK ARADHE,M.I.ARUN

65,105/- under proviso to clause (i) of Explanation 1 to section 115JB(2), on the facts and circumstances of the case? (iv) Without prejudice, whether the Tribunal in law failed to appreciate that the appellant had added back the provision for bad and doubtful debts for certain years and hence ought to have granted the deduction in respect

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 vs. M/S VIJAYA BANK

Bench: ALOK ARADHE,H.T. NARENDRA PRASAD

65,73,177/-, which is exempt under various sub-Sections of Section 10 of the Act and disallowed the aforesaid

THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX vs. M/S MOOKAMBIKA DEVELOPERS

The appeals stand allowed to the extent as indicated above, and the matter is

Bench: VINEET SARAN,A.V.CHANDRASHEKARA

65,00,000/- under Section 40A(3) of the Act. 2. Challenging the order of the Appellate Commissioner confirming the validity of reopening for the assessment under Section 148 of the Act, the assessee preferred an appeal before the Tribunal. The Revenue also preferred a separate appeal against the order of the Appellate Commissioner contending that the disallowance

THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX vs. M/S. ALLIANCE INFRASTRUCTURE PROJECTS PVT LTD.,

In the result, appeal is dismissed

Bench: ALOK ARADHE,HEMANT CHANDANGOUDAR

disallowance of Rs.2,77,65,949/- under Section 14A read with 8D(ii) of the Act and upheld the disallowance

TESCO HINDUSTAN WHOLESALING PVT. LTD.

In the result, appeal is dismissed

Bench: KRISHNA S DIXIT

disallowance of Rs.2,77,65,949/- under Section 14A read with 8D(ii) of the Act and upheld the disallowance

PR. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-5 vs. M/S. PUMA SPORTS INDIA P., LTD.,

The appeal stands dismissed

Bench: SATISH CHANDRA SHARMA,V SRISHANANDA

65,106/- on the basis of the order passed under Section 92CA of the Act dated 24.10.2016. The assessing authority also made other additions. The assessee’s objections were not considered by the Dispute Resumption Panel and therefore, an appeal was 3 filed before the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Bangalore (hereinafter referred to as ‘Tribunal’). The Tribunal has allowed

M/S BHORUKA POWER CORPORATION LTD vs. FORMERLY THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER

In the result, this appeal is allowed

Bench: P.S.DINESH KUMAR,C.M. POONACHA

65 YEARS SON OF SRI SUNDRESHAN NO.48, LAVELLE ROAD, BENGALURU - 560001. … APPELLANT (BY MS. SHEETAL BORKAR, ADVOCATE FOR SRI. S PARTHASARATHI, ADVOCATE) AND: FORMERLY THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE 11(2) AND PRESENTLY THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE 1(1) (2) INCOME - TAX OFFICES ROOM NO 242, 2ND FLOOR, BMTC BUILDING 80 FEET ROAD, 6TH BLOCK

TATA COFFEE LIMITED vs. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX

In the result, the same fails and is hereby

Bench: ALOK ARADHE,H.T. NARENDRA PRASAD

disallowance of a claim and in case, the Assessing Officer is not satisfied, he can reject the claim in entirety under Section 145(3) of the Act. In support of aforesaid submission, learned counsel for the assessee has placed reliance on decision of the Supreme Court in 5 ‘COMMISISONER OF INCOME-TAX VS. WALCHAND AND CO. P. LTD.’, (1967) 65

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

The appeals stand dismissed

Bench: ARAVIND KUMAR,VINEET SARAN

disallowance made by the Assessing Officer. The Tribunal dismissed the appeal of the Revenue and allowed the claim of the assessee and granted benefit under 4 Section 10A for the ‘on-site’ work carried out by the assessee through its sub-contractor i.e., AE. Aggrieved by the said order, these appeals have been filed, which have been admitted

THE PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER vs. M/S OBULAPURAM MINING

Bench: K.SOMASHEKAR,UMESH M ADIGA

disallowed Rs.131,00,28,895/- and Rs.37,69,65,007/- in all Rs.168,69,93,902/-. Further, the assessing officer has proceeded to invoke Section