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

GMR INFRASTRUCTURE LIMITED vs. THE DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX

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

Bench: ALOK ARADHE,HEMANT CHANDANGOUDAR

disallowance made under Section 14A of the Act of Rs.13,80,57,241/- (Rs.18,74,89,400/- less Rs.4,94,32,159/- and (ii) Disallowance

THE PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER vs. M/S OBULAPURAM MINING

Bench: K.SOMASHEKAR,UMESH M ADIGA

Disallowance of Expenses under Explanation to section 37(1) and in respect of third issue i.e., addition made on account of sale of Land, the ITAT set-aside the order of CIT (A) on that issue and restored the matter to A.O. for a fresh decision with the same directions as were given by the tribunal

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

PR. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX vs. M/S SUBRAMANYA CONSTRUCTIONS

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

Bench: ALOK ARADHE,M.G.S. KAMAL

disallowance made under Section 14A read with Rule 8D(2)(ii) amounting to Rs.4,64,15,708/- and under 8D(2)(iii) being 0.5% of Rs.31,74

PR,COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX vs. M/S SUBRAMANYA CONSTRUCTIONS

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

Bench: ALOK ARADHE,M.G.S. KAMAL

disallowance made under Section 14A read with Rule 8D(2)(ii) amounting to Rs.4,64,15,708/- and under 8D(2)(iii) being 0.5% of Rs.31,74

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

disallowance under Section 14A of the Act, the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) upheld the order of the Assessing Officer. In the result, the appeal preferred by the assessee was partly allowed. The assessee as well as the revenue filed appeals before the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal against the order of Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals). The Tribunal

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

Appeal is allowed

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

Section 45(4) of the IT Act as long term Capital gains, is not sustainable. 13. It was argued by Shri. Shankar that by applying the same logic, the Assessing Officer has 4 (1984)17 Taxmann. 330 KAR (para 4) I.T.A No.201/2017 12 added short-term Capital gains at 30% on the building which was constructed on the plot owned

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

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

Appeal is allowed in part accordingly

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

Section 36(1)(iii) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (for short 'Act') and added it to the 2 125 taxmann.com 164 (Karnataka) 3 Assessing Year - 5 - ITA No. 297 of 2017 Income. The CIT(A)4 has deleted the said addition and ITAT has confirmed the view taken by the CIT(A). 7. Shri. Sanmathi submitted that the Assessee

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

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. 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. ING VYSYA BANK LTD

In the result, this appeal is allowed in part,

Bench: B.MANOHAR,D.V.SHYLENDRA KUMAR

74,740/- had been correctly disallowed as the requirement of Section 36(1)(vii) and 36(1)(vii-a) had not been

THE PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER vs. M/S OBULAPURAM MINING

Bench: K.SOMASHEKAR,UMESH M ADIGA

Disallowance is not maintainable on law and facts and evidence and requires to be deleted. The grounds of appeal, the addition of entire sale consideration and taxing the same amounts to levy of turnover tax for which the assessing officer has no jurisdiction. It is also learnt that appellant has been accounting the receipts on this account regularly

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

The appeal is dismissed accordingly

Bench: SATISH CHANDRA SHARMA,V SRISHANANDA

disallowance of foreign exchange loss on forward contracts of Rs.26,31,35,000/- by following the decision of Bombay High Court in the case of CIT vs. D.Chethan and Co., in ITA No.278 of 2014 dated 01.10.2016, by allowing the foreign exchange loss as business loss even when the assessee camouflaged the forward contract loss i.e., marked to market loss

SMT. PUNEETHA @ PUNEETHA B. A. vs. SRI. D. RAVI

The appeal is dismissed accordingly

Bench: R DEVDAS

disallowance of foreign exchange loss on forward contracts of Rs.26,31,35,000/- by following the decision of Bombay High Court in the case of CIT vs. D.Chethan and Co., in ITA No.278 of 2014 dated 01.10.2016, by allowing the foreign exchange loss as business loss even when the assessee camouflaged the forward contract loss i.e., marked to market loss