THE PR COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-3 vs. M/S INDIANOIL SKYTANKING PVT LTD

Appeals stand dismissed

Bench: S.G.PANDIT,K. V. ARAVIND

Section 80-IA of the Act was held to be not allowable. 4.2 The Assessing Officer further disallowed the interest

THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX vs. INDUSTRIAL HYDRAULICS PVT LTD

In the result, this appeal is allowed

Bench: B.S PATIL,P.S.DINESH KUMAR

disallowed the deduction claimed by the assessee under Section 80-IA of the Act and accordingly, passed the order of assessment

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

disallowed as notional and not real, for the purpose of computation under Section 80HHC of the Act, the tribunal not having taken a contrary view, it is to be deemed as rejected. 17. Be that as it may, what we find is that in respect of the first item of incentive viz., premium sale exim scrips amount as claimed

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

Appeal is dismissed

Bench: ARAVIND KUMAR,SURAJ GOVINDARAJ

Section 80-IB which was in respect of a residential project “Majestic Residency”, had been disallowed by the Assessing Officer

M/S HUBLI ELECTRICITY SUPPLY CO. vs. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER

In the result, the appeals are disposed of as

Bench: JOHN MICHAEL CUNHA,S.SUJATHA

disallowing the claim of deduction under Section 80-IA(4)(iv)(c) of the Act. The authorities treated the items

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 of freight charges under section 40(a)(i) of the IT Act 80,19,59,658 Disallowance of Depreciation

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 of freight charges under section 40(a)(i) of the IT Act 80,19,59,658 Disallowance of Depreciation

COFFEEDAY GLOBAL LTD. vs. ADDITIONAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX

In the result, the orders dated 21

Bench: ALOK ARADHE,ASHOK S.KINAGI

disallowed irrespective of whether the same is towards extension or expansion of business. It is also urged that expression 'expansion' and 'extension' connote different meaning and the legislature in its wisdom has used the aforesaid expressions differently. In this connection, our attention was invited to Section 80

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

disallowed irrespective of whether the same is towards extension or expansion of business. It is also urged that expression 'expansion' and 'extension' connote different meaning and the legislature in its wisdom has used the aforesaid expressions differently. In this connection, our attention was invited to Section 80

COFFEEDAY GLOBAL LTD. vs. ADDITIONAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX

In the result, the orders dated 21

Bench: ALOK ARADHE,ASHOK S.KINAGI

disallowed irrespective of whether the same is towards extension or expansion of business. It is also urged that expression 'expansion' and 'extension' connote different meaning and the legislature in its wisdom has used the aforesaid expressions differently. In this connection, our attention was invited to Section 80

THE PR. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX vs. M/S. TE CONNECTIVITY INDIA PVT. LTD.,

Accordingly dispose of the appeal as allowed

Bench: ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE,S RACHAIAH

80 FEET ROAD, KORMANGALA, BENGALURU - 560 095. ...APPELLANTS (BY SRI. SUSHAL TIWARI N, ADVOCATE) AND: M/S. TE CONNECTIVITY INDIA PVT. LTD., TE PARK, 22B, DODDENAKUNDI CORPORATION, 2ND PHASE, INDUSTRIAL AREA, WHITEFIELD ROAD, BENGALURU - 560 048. PAN: AABCT7474C …RESPONDENT (BY SRI. K. SURYANARAYANA, SENIOR ADVOCATE FOR SMT. TANMAYEE RAJKUMAR, ADVOCATE) THIS ITA IS FILED UNDER SECTION 260A OF THE INCOME

THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX vs. TEXAS INSTRUMENTS INDIA PVT LTD

The appeals are dismissed

Bench: SATISH CHANDRA SHARMA,SURAJ GOVINDARAJ

disallowed by the AO. The claim of the Assessee is this that if the worker is employed on permanent basis then only because in the present year, working days are less than 300 days because he was employed after 66 days from the start of the previous year then no deduction will be available under this section in respect

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

disallowed the claim for deduction under Section 80 JJA in respect of bio-fuel pellets. However, he allowed deduction in respect

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

In the result, the order of the

Bench: ALOK ARADHE,H.T. NARENDRA PRASAD

Section 10(34) of the Act. However, the assessee claimed that it had incurred no expenditure in earning the dividend income. Therefore, the Assessing Officer rightly invoked Rule 8D(iii) of the Rules and disallowed a sum of Rs.15,80

HINDUSTAN AERONAUTICS LIMITED vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER

In the result, the order of the

Bench: ALOK ARADHE,H.T. NARENDRA PRASAD

Section 10(34) of the Act. However, the assessee claimed that it had incurred no expenditure in earning the dividend income. Therefore, the Assessing Officer rightly invoked Rule 8D(iii) of the Rules and disallowed a sum of Rs.15,80

THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX vs. M/S. STATE BANK OF MYSORE

In the result, the order passed by the tribunal

Bench: ALOK ARADHE,H.T. NARENDRA PRASAD

Section 14A of the Act and the burden of establishing non-incurring of expenditure was on the assessee? (v) Whether the Appellate Authorities committed an error in not taking consideration that 80% of the total funds employed are borrowed funds and the investment by the assessee is from the borrowed funds and the correspondent interest is liable to be disallowed

ESSILOR INDIA PVT LTD vs. THE DEPUTY

The appeal is disposed of

Bench: ALOK ARADHE,SHIVASHANKAR AMARANNAVAR

disallowance under Section 14A of the Act read with Rule 8D has to be confined in respect of the claim made by the assessee to the extent of Rs.1,61,035/-. In support of aforesaid submissions, reliance has been placed on decisions in 'HINDUSTAN AERONAUTICS LIMITED S. ACIT AND ANOTHER', (2021) 125 TAXMANN.COM 80

THE PR.COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIT(A) vs. M/S. ADVAITH MOTORS PVT LTD.,

Bench: S.SUJATHA,VINEET KOTHARI

Disallowance under Section 14A of Rs.2,48,85,000/- as expenses to earn exempted Dividend income of Rs.1,80,30,965/- is per se absurd