THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX vs. M/S AMCO POWER SYSTEMS LTD.,

Bench: B.MANOHAR,VINEET SARAN

79 of the Act. 7 5. Similarly, for the earlier four assessment years 1999-2000, 2000-01, 2001-02 and 2002-03, the case of the assessee was reopened under Section 147/148 of the Act and the benefit granted in such years under Section 35AB of the Act was disallowed

THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX vs. M/S AMCO POWER SYSTEMS LTD.,

Bench: B.MANOHAR,VINEET SARAN

79 of the Act. 7 5. Similarly, for the earlier four assessment years 1999-2000, 2000-01, 2001-02 and 2002-03, the case of the assessee was reopened under Section 147/148 of the Act and the benefit granted in such years under Section 35AB of the Act was disallowed

MANGALORE REFINERY AND PETROCHEMICALS LTD vs. PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX

In the result, I pass the following:-

Bench: The Hon'Ble Mr.Justice S.R.Krishna Kumar

Disallowance under section 14A of the IT Act 9,03,79,391 7 8. Being aggrieved by the aforesaid assessment

MANGALORE REFINERY AND PETROCHEMICALS LTD vs. PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX

In the result, I pass the following:-

Bench: The Hon'Ble Mr.Justice S.R.Krishna Kumar

Disallowance under section 14A of the IT Act 9,03,79,391 7 8. Being aggrieved by the aforesaid assessment

COFFEEDAY GLOBAL LTD. vs. ADDITIONAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX

In the result, the orders dated 21

Bench: ALOK ARADHE,ASHOK S.KINAGI

79,326/- to Rs.5,05,06,362/- by reducing the interest rate from 12@ to 7.6%. (iv) the disallowance of processing charges of Rs.9,77,23,650/- was deleted in view of the decision of 10 the Supreme Court in INDIA CEMENTS VS. CIT [(19660 60 ITR 52(SC)]. 3. Being aggrieved by the order passed by the Commissioner

COFFEEDAY GLOBAL LTD. vs. ADDITIONAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX

In the result, the orders dated 21

Bench: ALOK ARADHE,ASHOK S.KINAGI

79,326/- to Rs.5,05,06,362/- by reducing the interest rate from 12@ to 7.6%. (iv) the disallowance of processing charges of Rs.9,77,23,650/- was deleted in view of the decision of 10 the Supreme Court in INDIA CEMENTS VS. CIT [(19660 60 ITR 52(SC)]. 3. Being aggrieved by the order passed by the Commissioner

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

79,326/- to Rs.5,05,06,362/- by reducing the interest rate from 12@ to 7.6%. (iv) the disallowance of processing charges of Rs.9,77,23,650/- was deleted in view of the decision of 10 the Supreme Court in INDIA CEMENTS VS. CIT [(19660 60 ITR 52(SC)]. 3. Being aggrieved by the order passed by the Commissioner

COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (CENTRAL) vs. M/S. GMR ENERGY LTD

In the result, the appeal is dismissed

Bench: ALOK ARADHE,HEMANT CHANDANGOUDAR

Section 14A read with Rule 8D of the Rules. The interest on the diverted borrowed capital was also disallowed. Thus, in all, disallowance of Rs.43,85,79

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 read with Rule 8D of the Rules is called for. In support of aforesaid submissions, reliance has been placed on decisions in 'KODAGU DISTRICT CO-OPEARTIVE CENTRAL BANK LTD. VS. ACIT IN ITA NO.318/2016 DATED 19.01.2021, 'PCIT VS. STERLING DEVELOPERS P.LTD. IN ITA NO.685 OF 2015 DATED 04.02.2021 (KAR.), 'CIT S. QUEST GLOBAL

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

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

Bench: SATISH CHANDRA SHARMA,S VISHWAJITH SHETTY

79,57,900/- by making certain additions and disallowances. The Assessing Officer also made a disallowance under Section 14A of the Act of Rs.4

PR. COMMISSIONER OF vs. M/S STERLING DEVELOPERS

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

Bench: SATISH CHANDRA SHARMA,SURAJ GOVINDARAJ

79,57,900/- by making certain additions and disallowances. The Assessing Officer also made a disallowance under Section 14A of the Act of Rs.4

PR.COMMISSIONER OF INCOMETAX-2 vs. M/S.EYGBS (INDIA) PVT LTD

Bench: CHIEF JUSTICE,C M JOSHI

disallowance of 10% of dividend income under Section 14A of the Act. 5. The Assessee is engaged in the business of providing back office support and data processing services to its customers. The Assessee had filed its return of income [ROI] for the AY 2015-16 and AY 2016-17 on 30.11.2015 and 14.10.2016 respectively. The Assessee had declared

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

disallowed the deduction claimed by the assessee under Section 35(2AB) of the Act on the following grounds: 37 (i) assessee has incurred expenditure of ` 13,95,73,315/- in respect of incompleted projects as the new products have not yet been developed; (ii) ` 11,00,79

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

79,156/-. An order of rectification was passed on 13.07.2010 by which refund of a sum of Rs.10,55,000/- was granted. Thereafter, a search and seizure operation under Section 132 of the Act was initiated on 11.10.2012 and a notice under Section 153A of the Act was issued on 4 17.02.2014. The appellant filed a letter requesting to treat

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

Appeal is allowed

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

79,298/- is to be taken as deemed profit on transfer of stock and consequently passed a perverse order on the facts and circumstances of the case. 4. Whether the Tribunal was justified in confirming the disallowance of Rs.53,367/- under Section

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 ASEA BROWN BOVERI LTD

Bench: ALOK ARADHE,M.NAGAPRASANNA

disallowance of claim under Section 40(A)(3) of the Act was also upheld. The finding with regard to allowing deduction under Section 80HHC of the Act was upheld. In the result, the appeal was dismissed. 9 4. The assessee filed an appeal before the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal. The tribunal by an order dated 25.05.2012 inter alia held that

M/S KARNATAKA STATE BEVERAGES CORPORATION LTD vs. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX

In the result, the orders passed by the

Bench: ALOK ARADHE,H.T. NARENDRA PRASAD

Section 43B of the Act and also disallowed a sum of Rs.55,000/- on account of expenditure incurred in respect of donation made and determined the total income of the assessee at Rs.3,79