THE PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER vs. M/S OBULAPURAM MINING

Bench: K.SOMASHEKAR,UMESH M ADIGA

Disallowance of expenses claimed under section 37(1) towards illegal mining. 387,76,69,992/- 4. Aggrieved by the above

THE PR COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX vs. M/S HINDUSTAN AERONAUTICS LTD

In the result, the order of the

Bench: ALOK ARADHE,H.T. NARENDRA PRASAD

disallowance of its claim under Section 14A of the Act was made. The revenue has filed an appeal being aggrieved by the order of the tribunal granting the alternate relief to the assessee for Research and Development expenses under Section 35(1)(iv) of the Act. 8 6. Learned counsel for the assessee submitted that the authorities under

HINDUSTAN AERONAUTICS LIMITED vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER

In the result, the order of the

Bench: ALOK ARADHE,H.T. NARENDRA PRASAD

disallowance of its claim under Section 14A of the Act was made. The revenue has filed an appeal being aggrieved by the order of the tribunal granting the alternate relief to the assessee for Research and Development expenses under Section 35(1)(iv) of the Act. 8 6. Learned counsel for the assessee submitted that the authorities under

M/S KODAGU DISTRICT CO-OPERATIVE CENTRAL BANK LTD vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX

In the result, the order passed by the Assessing

Bench: ALOK ARADHE,R. NATARAJ

Section 14A of 7 the Act. Paragraph 5 of the Act is reproduced below for reference: “5. Disallowance U/s 14A: The assessee claimed that Income received from Mutual Fund is totally exempt from Income Tax U/s 10(23D)(i) & (ii) of the Income Tax Act, 1961. These mutual funds are registered under the Securities and Exchange Board of India

PR. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX - 4 vs. M/S STERLING DEVELOPERS

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

Bench: SATISH CHANDRA SHARMA,S VISHWAJITH SHETTY

disallowance under Section 14A of the Act of Rs.4,92,78,160/- and under Rule 8D(2)(iii) of the Income Tax Rules, 1962, being 0.5% of Rs.27,91,520/- totaling to an amount of Rs.5,20,69

PR. COMMISSIONER OF vs. M/S STERLING DEVELOPERS

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

Bench: SATISH CHANDRA SHARMA,SURAJ GOVINDARAJ

disallowance under Section 14A of the Act of Rs.4,92,78,160/- and under Rule 8D(2)(iii) of the Income Tax Rules, 1962, being 0.5% of Rs.27,91,520/- totaling to an amount of Rs.5,20,69

OFFICIAL LIQUIDATOR

Appeal is dismissed

Bench: S SUNIL DUTT YADAV

Section 14A and Rule 8-D disallowed a total of sum of Rs.35,80,69,080/- Assessee preferred an appeal

THE COMMISSIONER vs. M/S VIJAYA BANK

Bench: ALOK ARADHE,H.T. NARENDRA PRASAD

69,349/- being excess provision claimed under Section 36(vii-a) 5 of the Act. The Assessing Officer disallowed the depreciation

CGI INFORMATION SYSTEMS vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF

Appeals are allowed

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

disallowed the benefit under Section 10A of the IT Act for A.Y.1998-99. For the said reason among others, ITAT has dismissed the appeal concurring with the finding of the CIT(A). 7 (2017)88 taxmann.com 69

CGI INFORMATION SYSTEMS vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER

Appeals are allowed

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

disallowed the benefit under Section 10A of the IT Act for A.Y.1998-99. For the said reason among others, ITAT has dismissed the appeal concurring with the finding of the CIT(A). 7 (2017)88 taxmann.com 69

CGI INFORMATION SYSTEMS vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER

Appeals are allowed

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

disallowed the benefit under Section 10A of the IT Act for A.Y.1998-99. For the said reason among others, ITAT has dismissed the appeal concurring with the finding of the CIT(A). 7 (2017)88 taxmann.com 69

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

The appeal is allowed and the impugned

Bench: SATISH CHANDRA SHARMA,V SRISHANANDA

disallowance of ITC on the purchase of sawdust, the Additional Commissioner has opined, referring to 11[a][7] of the KVAT Act, that the appellant will not be eligible to claim such as ITC. 8. The appellant has filed an application for rectification under Section 69

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

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

The appeal stands dismissed

Bench: SATISH CHANDRA SHARMA,V SRISHANANDA

69,36,680/-. The assessing authority passed an order under Section 143(3) read with Section 144(C)(13) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as ‘Act’) by making transfer pricing adjustment for Rs.4,16,65,106/- on the basis of the order passed under Section 92CA of the Act dated 24.10.2016. The assessing authority also made

THE PR. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIT (A) vs. M/S AXISCADES AEROSPACE AND TECHNOLOGIES PVT LTD

Appeal is dismissed;

Bench: P.S.DINESH KUMAR,RAMACHANDRA D. HUDDAR

disallowance under section 14A of the Act cannot be made if there is no exempt income earned in the relevant assessment year ignoring 1 Income tax Appellate Tribunal, Bengaluru Bench - 3 - ITA No. 69

HINDUSTAN AERONAUTICS vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER

In the result, the appeal is disposed of

Bench: ALOK ARADHE,H.T. NARENDRA PRASAD

Section 148 of the Act on 29.01.2013 and reduced an amount of Rs.2,69,18,47,858/- from the deductible expenditure on the ground that the same was capital in nature. The disallowance

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

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX vs. M/S GULBARGA ELECTRICITY SUPPLY COMPANY LTD.

Accordingly, appeal of Revenue is dismissed

Bench: B.VEERAPPA,VINEET KOTHARI

Section 143(3) of the Act on 30.11.2011 wherein the income of the assessee was determined at `69,76,80,360/- in view of the following disallowances