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 14A of the Act for a sum of Rs.77,72,330/-. (ii) disallowance of interest of Rs.1,90,81,831/- on borrowed capital as having been utilized for share 8 application money to a foreign company A.N.Coffeeday International Ltd. ("AN Coffeeday" for short and as such warranting capitalization; (iii) disallowance of interest of Rs.7,97,70

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

70,000/- made disallowance under Section 14A of the Act in a sum of Rs.19,20,039/-, disallowance of provision

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

The appeals are dismissed

Bench: SATISH CHANDRA SHARMA,SURAJ GOVINDARAJ

disallowance on the ground that there is no tax deduction at source made by the Assessee. 17.8. The orders passed by the Tribunal are proper and correct and do not require to be interfered with. 17.9. Accordingly, we answer Question No.2 by holding that there is no deduction required to be made either under Section 194-C or under Section

PR COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-7 vs. M/S TALLY SOLUTIONS PVT LTD

In the result, the appeals fail and are hereby

Bench: ALOK ARADHE,H.T. NARENDRA PRASAD

Section 142(1) of the Act were issued. The Assessing Officer by an order dated 27.03.2013 concluded the assessment by making certain additions and disallowed a sum of Rs.6,70

PR COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-7 vs. M/S TALLY SOLUTIONS PVT LTD

In the result, the appeals fail and are hereby

Bench: ALOK ARADHE,H.T. NARENDRA PRASAD

Section 142(1) of the Act were issued. The Assessing Officer by an order dated 27.03.2013 concluded the assessment by making certain additions and disallowed a sum of Rs.6,70

PR. COMMISSIONER OF vs. M/S TALLY SOLUTIONS PVT LTD.,

In the result, the appeals fail and are hereby

Bench: ALOK ARADHE,H.T. NARENDRA PRASAD

Section 142(1) of the Act were issued. The Assessing Officer by an order dated 27.03.2013 concluded the assessment by making certain additions and disallowed a sum of Rs.6,70

THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX vs. M/S JINDAL ALUMINIUM LIMITED

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

Bench: ALOK ARADHE,H.T. NARENDRA PRASAD

disallowance under Section 14A of the Act in respect of Rs.14,40,470/- to the Assessing Officer. In the aforesaid factual background, the revenue is in appeal before us. 3. Learned counsel for the revenue submitted that Section 80IA(1) of the Act is applicable to eligible business and all profit making and loss making units have to be aggregated

PR COMMISSIONER OF vs. M/S WIPRO LIMITED

In the result, the appeal is disposed of in terms

Bench: ALOK ARADHE,H.T. NARENDRA PRASAD

disallowance under Section 40(a)(ia) of the Act is to ensure prevention of revenue leakage on foreign payments as recovery of tax from non resident payees was difficult. With regard to the claim of set off of STP unit losses of the assessee, it is 17 submitted that in view of decision of the Supreme Court in ‘COMMISSIONER

THE PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CIT(A) vs. SHRI.S.S. BAKKESH

In the result, both the appeals filed by the Revenue are

Bench: D K SINGH,VENKATESH NAIK T

disallowance under Section 68 of the Act for Rs.15,70,650/- and treated sale proceeds of bio- compost of Rs.9

THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX vs. M/S VESESH INFOTECHNICS LIMITEDD

Bench: B.MANOHAR,K.SREEDHAR RAO

disallowing the deduction under Section 80-IB for the assessment year 2000-2001 and 2001-2002 and also litigation expenditure of Rs.19,00,000/-, the assessee preferred an appeal before the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-III, Bangalore contending that the order passed by the Assessing Authority and also reopening 8 the assessment for the assessment year

THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX vs. M/S. GOKALDAS IMAGES PVT.LTD

In the result, the appeal is disposed of

Bench: ALOK ARADHE,H.T. NARENDRA PRASAD

disallowance made under section 14A should not be added to the Book Profits of the assessee under 4 section 115JB despite the explicit provisions of Clause (i) of Explanation (1) to section 115JB? (iv) Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was right in law in deletion of portion of common expenses allocated even

M/S WIPRO LIMITED vs. THE ADDITIONAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX,

In the result, the appeal is disposed of in terms of

Bench: ALOK ARADHE,H.T. NARENDRA PRASAD

disallowed under Section 14A of the Act and was upheld by the Dispute Resolution Panel and the tribunal rightly reduced it to 2.5%. It is also pointed out that the assessee itself has worked out the same at 2%. It is also urged that losses of non STP units, profits of taxable Units cannot be set off against profits

THE PR. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME T AX vs. M/S GMR ENTERPRISES PVT LTD

Appeal is dismissed

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

section and Rules are fully satisfied and as such entire disallowances made under said provision was liable to be upheld"? 2. Heard Shri. M. Dilip, learned Standing Counsel for the Revenue and Shri. Balram R. Rao, learned Advocate for the assessee. 3. At the outset, Shri. Balram Rao submits that issue involved in this appeal is covered by the decision

PR COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-6 vs. M/S SUBEX TECHNOLOGIES LTD

In the result, the appeal is disposed of

Bench: ALOK ARADHE,H.T. NARENDRA PRASAD

70,10,894/- was declared. The case was selected for scrutiny and notices under Section 143(2) dated 21.08.2009 and Section 142(1) dated 04.06.2010 and 12.08.2010 were issued and served on the 5 assessee. 4. The Assessing Officer on perusal of the statement of accounts, noticed that assessee has debited a sum of Rs.62

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

Section 70 of the KVAT Act, the Prescribed Authorityhas disallowed ITC observing that the appellant has failed to place on record

HINDUSTAN AERONAUTICS LIMITED vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER

In the result, the appeal is disposed of

Bench: ALOK ARADHE,H.T. NARENDRA PRASAD

section 35(1)(iv) of the Act? 2. The Tribunal was right in holding that expenses to the extent of Rs.447,70,84,235/- incurred towards research and development is capital in nature? 3. The Tribunal was justified in not adjudicating on the correctness or otherwise of the disallowance

THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME EXEMPTION vs. M/S CANARA BANK

Bench: CHIEF JUSTICE,C M JOSHI

Section 143(3) of the Act. The Assessing Officer [AO] determined the Assessee's taxable income for the relevant [AY] 2016-17 at `8,93,02,628/-. The said determination was on account of the following additions: i) Disallowance of `3,14,00,000/- which was utilized for capital expenditure out of accumulated funds from previous year; and ii) Disallowance

COFFEE DAY GLOBAL LIMITED vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX

The appeal is allowed

Bench: SATISH CHANDRA SHARMA,R. NATARAJ

disallowance of Rs.7,97,70,326/- as interest on capital attributable to capital work in progress relying on proviso Section