COFFEEDAY GLOBAL LTD. vs. ADDITIONAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX

In the result, the orders dated 21

Bench: ALOK ARADHE,ASHOK S.KINAGI

disallowance of interest under Section 36(1)(iii) of the Act. Similarly twin issues arise for consideration in this appeal viz., whether loan processing and other charges can be allowed as revenue expenditure or has to be treated as capital in nature and whether the tribunal has acted in contravention of the provision of Section

COFFEEDAY GLOBAL LTD. vs. ADDITIONAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX

In the result, the orders dated 21

Bench: ALOK ARADHE,ASHOK S.KINAGI

disallowance of interest under Section 36(1)(iii) of the Act. Similarly twin issues arise for consideration in this appeal viz., whether loan processing and other charges can be allowed as revenue expenditure or has to be treated as capital in nature and whether the tribunal has acted in contravention of the provision of Section

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 under Section 14A of the Act. [SEE: STERLING DEVELOPERS (P) LTD. AND QUEST GLOBAL ENGINEERING SERVICES PVT. LTD. SUPRA]. For the reasons assigned by us supra, second and third substantial questions of law are also answered in favour of the assessee. 10. The assessee had made fake advances to M/s Lakshmi Estate and later became a partner

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

75,95,922/- . On said return being selected for scrutiny, notice came to be issued and draft assessment order came to be framed on 27.03.2013 under Section 144C(1) of the Act whereunder income of petitioner was revised after making certain adjustments. On receipt of the draft assessment order, assessee filed its objection before the Dispute Resolution Panel

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

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

Bench: B.MANOHAR,K.SREEDHAR RAO

75,000/- in respect of Computer Software sales. After deducting the expenses of Rs.3,31,788/- arrived at the profit of Rs.60,43,212/- from this Unit. On reassessment, deduction under Section 80-IA was disallowed

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 ASEA BROWN BOVERI LTD

Bench: ALOK ARADHE,M.NAGAPRASANNA

disallowed under Section 40(A)(3) of the Act. (iv) The assessing officer held that 90% of the interest received on bank deposits, interest from employees and customers, income from commission, rental income, income on commission from technical services has been excluded for the purposes of computing profits of the business as per Explanation (baa) to Section 80HHC

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

PR. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX vs. M/S CHAMUNDI WINERY AND DISTILLERY

Bench: S.SUJATHA,VINEET KOTHARI

disallowed the said “Distributable Surplus” paid by the Respondent Assessee CHAMUNDI to DIAGEO under Date of Judgment 25-09-2018 I.T.A.No.155/2016 and connected matters The Pr. Commissioner of Income Tax & Ors. Vs. M/s. Chamundi Winery and Distillery 10/137 Section 37 of the Act and also held that the said income earned out of manufacture and sale of liquor

THE PR. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (4) vs. M/S CHAMUNDI WINERY AND DISTILLERY

Bench: S.SUJATHA,VINEET KOTHARI

disallowed the said “Distributable Surplus” paid by the Respondent Assessee CHAMUNDI to DIAGEO under Date of Judgment 25-09-2018 I.T.A.No.155/2016 and connected matters The Pr. Commissioner of Income Tax & Ors. Vs. M/s. Chamundi Winery and Distillery 10/137 Section 37 of the Act and also held that the said income earned out of manufacture and sale of liquor

M/S AMD FAR EAST LTD., vs. THE JOINT DIRECTOR OF INCOME-TAX

Bench: S.SUJATHA,RAVI V HOSMANI

disallowing - 4 - deduction under Section 37[1] of the Act in respect of expatriate costs incurred by the assessee’s permanent establishment. Being aggrieved, the assessee preferred appeal before the Tribunal which came to be rejected. Hence, the present appeal. 4. Learned counsel for the assessee argued that the expatriate employees of the head office were monitoring the marketing activities

THE PR COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX vs. M/S ARUBA NETWORKS INDIA

In the result, the petition stands dismissed

Bench: Going To The Merits Of The Case & Consequently Whether Or Not The Tribunal’S Order Is Vitiated & Hence Unsustainable In Law?

75% of the income was offered to tax under Section 8 of the State Act. The Assessing Officer disallowing the excess

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

The appeal is dismissed accordingly

Bench: SATISH CHANDRA SHARMA,V SRISHANANDA

Section 43(5) of the Act?” 9. The learned counsel for the Income tax department has placed reliance upon a judgment delivered by the Bombay High Court in the case of COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX- 16, MUMBAI vs. D.CHETAN & CO., reported in (2016) 75 taxmann.com 300 (Bombay) as well as upon a judgment delivered in the case of COMMISSIONER

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

The appeal is dismissed accordingly

Bench: R DEVDAS

Section 43(5) of the Act?” 9. The learned counsel for the Income tax department has placed reliance upon a judgment delivered by the Bombay High Court in the case of COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX- 16, MUMBAI vs. D.CHETAN & CO., reported in (2016) 75 taxmann.com 300 (Bombay) as well as upon a judgment delivered in the case of COMMISSIONER

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