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

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

Bench: SATISH CHANDRA SHARMA,S VISHWAJITH SHETTY

Section 73 does not allow setting off of speculation loss against any other income other than speculation income?” 5. The Division Bench of this Court in the aforesaid appeal in paragraphs 14 & 15 has held as under: ITA 168/2019 5 “14. Now we may advert to the second substantial question of law. It is pertinent to note that for Assessment

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

THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX vs. M/S QUEST GLOBAL ENGINEERING SERVICES PVT. LTD.,

In the result, we don to find any

Bench: ALOK ARADHE,R. NATARAJ

disallowances made by Assessing Officer on provision of loss on derivative contracts without appreciating that the provision for loss cannot be allowed when the actual sales had not even taken place and maturity date of the derivatives contracts has not arisen and the notional loss or notional income and deduction of liabilities which are 3 unascertained does not come within

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

Section 73 does not allow setting off of speculation loss against any other income other than speculation income?” 5. The Division Bench of this Court in the aforesaid appeal in paragraphs 14 & 15 has held as under: “14. Now we may advert to the second substantial question of law. It is pertinent to note that for Assessment Year

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

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

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

Appeal is allowed

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

disallowance of Rs.53,367/- under Section 14A of the IT Act. Shri. Shankar submitted that assessee had made investment of Rs.1,06,73

THE COMMISSIONER vs. M/S VIJAYA BANK

Bench: ALOK ARADHE,H.T. NARENDRA PRASAD

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

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

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

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 MARUTI SUBRAY PATIL

The appeal stands disposed of in the above terms

Bench: The Hon’Ble Mr.Justice Ravi Malimath & The Hon’Ble Mr.Justice G. Narendar

Section 40(a)(ia) of I.T. Act and disallowed the amount of Rs.4,07,73,435/-. 5. The assessee aggrieved

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

THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX vs. M/S WIPRO LTD

The appeals stand disposed of, accordingly

Bench: N.KUMAR,B.SREENIVASE GOWDA

disallowed on the ground that the DTAA with USA and Canada shows that the claim is admissible only for the taxes paid under Income Tax Act in India and Federal tax in USA and Canada. In coming to the said conclusion the authorities have failed to notice Section 91 of the Act. Statutorily the assessee would be entitled to deduction

M/S WIPRO LIMITED vs. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX

The appeals stand disposed of, accordingly

Bench: N.KUMAR,B.SREENIVASE GOWDA

disallowed on the ground that the DTAA with USA and Canada shows that the claim is admissible only for the taxes paid under Income Tax Act in India and Federal tax in USA and Canada. In coming to the said conclusion the authorities have failed to notice Section 91 of the Act. Statutorily the assessee would be entitled to deduction

COMMISSONER OF INCOME TAX vs. M/S SHAW WALLACE

In the result, the appeal fails and is hereby

Bench: ALOK ARADHE,H.T. NARENDRA PRASAD

disallowance under Section 14A of the Act. The assessee thereupon filed an appeal before the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), who by an order dated 03.07.2006 partly allowed the appeal preferred by the assessee. The assessee as well as the revenue approached the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal by filing appeals. The Tribunal, 5 by an order dated 17.05.2013 partly allowed