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

disallowance of claim under Section 14A of the Act for a sum of Rs.77,72,330/-. (ii) disallowance of interest

COFFEEDAY GLOBAL LTD. vs. ADDITIONAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX

In the result, the orders dated 21

Bench: ALOK ARADHE,ASHOK S.KINAGI

disallowance of claim under Section 14A of the Act for a sum of Rs.77,72,330/-. (ii) disallowance of interest

M/S J K INDUSTRIES LTD vs. THE JOINT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX

In the result, all questions are answered against the

Bench: D.V.SHYLENDRA KUMAR,B.SREENIVASE GOWDA

72 of the Act, which is carried forward losses and unabsorbed depreciation of the earlier years and by setting off these amounts, if any, before arriving at the total income of the assessee. 12. The other point canvassed by Sri Shankar is relating to the amount which qualifies as the export incentives under sub-section (1) of Section 80HHC

M/S KHODAY INDIA LTD vs. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX

In the result, the orders passed by the Assessing

Bench: ALOK ARADHE,HEMANT CHANDANGOUDAR

disallowance of interest on advance for capital goods and ESI contributions under Section 36(1)(va) of the Act to the extent of Rs.22,42,507/-, Rs.59,11,624/-, Rs.23,72

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

72,23,231/- came to be disallowed. 24. Thus, an amount of ` 48,41,82,071/- out of deduction of ` 89,35,48,193/- claimed under Section

PR. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX-4 vs. KARNATAKA STATE FINANCIAL CORPORATION LTD

Bench: SATISH CHANDRA SHARMA,S VISHWAJITH SHETTY

disallowance under Section 14A of the I.T.Act for Rs.2,48,72,710/- and the same was disallowed by adding back

PR COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-5 vs. M/S NOVELL SOFTWARE DEVELOPMENT (INDIA) PVT.LTD.

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

Bench: ALOK ARADHE,R. NATARAJ

disallowances under Section 40(a)(i)(a) of the Act. Thus, the Assessing Officer made a total addition of Rs.8,72

THE PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER vs. M/S OBULAPURAM MINING

Bench: K.SOMASHEKAR,UMESH M ADIGA

72,23,641/- Total adjustments Rs.112,20,92,081/- 7. It is further stated that the draft assessment order came to be passed under section 144C read with Section 143(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 by adopting the above adjustments to the value of the international transactions and the income of the assessee came to be upwardly revised

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.9,73,02,533/- as unaccounted. - 6 - ITA No. 72

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

PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-5 vs. M/S. NADATHUR ESTATES PVT. LTD.,

Appeal stands dismissed

Bench: SATISH CHANDRA SHARMA,RAVI V HOSMANI

disallowance under section 14A r.w.r.8D (2)(iii) by taking into account only the investments which yielded exempt income during the said year, by relying on the decision of the Special Bench in the case of ACIT vs. Vireet Investment (P) Ltd., (82 taxman.com 415 (Del) when the assessing authority has rightly invoked section 14A r/w Rule

M/S. KARNATAKA INSTRADE CORPORATION LIMITED vs. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX

The appeal is allowed in part

Bench: B.MANOHAR,VINEET SARAN

72 expressly provides that such a course is permissible only where “the business or profession for which the loss was originally computed continued to be carried on by him in 29 the previous year relevant for that assessment year”. In the absence of any words to that effect, it must be held that for availing of the benefit of Section

PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX - 7 vs. M/S UNIVERSAL POWER TRANSFORMERS PVT LTD

The appeal stands dismissed accordingly

Bench: SATISH CHANDRA SHARMA,RAVI V HOSMANI

72,710/- to total income of the assessee as the ingredients of Section 14A read with Rule 8D(2)(iii) are satisfied in the case of the assessee and without appreciating that the investment in the form of share application money by the company would only result in exempt income and provision of Section 14A would clearly apply

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 COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, vs. M/S BAHUBALI NEMINATH MUTTIN,

The appeals are dismissed

Bench: ANAND BYRAREDDY,RAGHVENDRA S.CHAUHAN

Section 68 of the I.T. Act being the undisclosed income of Rs.10,72,247/- (iv) Disallowance under Section 40A (3) of the I.T. Act being

THE PR. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX vs. M/S CISCO SYSTEMS

The appeals are allowed; the impugned

Bench: SATISH CHANDRA SHARMA,R. NATARAJ

disallowed the excess depreciation claimed on networking equipments. 3. The Principal Commissioner of Income Tax, Bengaluru, thereafter issued a notice under Section 263 of the Act of 1961 on 5.3.2015 and called upon the assessee to explain as to why the assessment order passed by the assessing officer under Section 143(3) of the Act of 1961 should

M/S ANS CONSTRUCTIONS LTD vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF COMMERCIAL

Bench: The Hon’Ble Mrs.Justice S.Sujatha

disallowed the claim of input tax credit. It is beneficial to refer to the relevant paragraphs which reads thus: “12. It is contended on behalf of the assessee that, once input tax has been paid, by virtue of Section 10 the assessee is entitled to the rebate of the tax against the output tax notwithstanding the fact that such

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