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

disallow such claim made by the assessee though duly certified by the prescribed authority by taking recourse to the later portion of sub-clause (ii) of sub-section (4) of Section 43 of the Act. He would summarise his 9 submissions by contending the definition of ‘scientific research’ found in Section 43(4) has been imported to Section

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 of claim made under Section 37(1) of Rs.1,08,333/- being expenditure on account of club membership fees. 3. The Assessing Officer determined the total income at Rs.Nil as against the amount of returned loss of Rs.5,87

M/S. B FOURESS (P) LIMITED vs. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER

In the result, the order dated

Bench: ALOK ARADHE,R. NATARAJ

87,730/- which was revised on 22.03.2011. Thereafter, the assessment was concluded under Section 143(3) of the Act on 14.12.2011 by the Assessing Officer after disallowing

M/S GRANITE MART LIMITED vs. THE INCOME-TAX OFFICER

In the result the order passed by the

Bench: ALOK ARADHE,M.NAGAPRASANNA

disallowed the claim for deduction under Section 10B of the Act in respect of the sales made through third parties i.e., export houses and inter unit transfers. The Assessing Officer determined the income of the appellant as Rs.1,09,72,680/- as against the income declared by the appellant of Rs.1,88,920/- and passed an order under Section

THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX vs. M/S ASEA BROWN BOVERI LTD

Bench: ALOK ARADHE,M.NAGAPRASANNA

87,442/- was paid and no evidence was adduced by the assessee for exceptional circumstances to attract Rule 6DD(j) of the Rules and was disallowed under Section

COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-III vs. M/S. ONMOBILE GLOBAL LTD

In the result, the matter is remitted to the Tribunal to

Bench: ALOK ARADHE,R. NATARAJ

87,770/-. The Assessing Officer has disallowed the aforesaid claim on the ground that the expenditure is capital in nature and not revenue expenditure. Even the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) has accepted the aforesaid finding of the Assessing Officer. However, the benefit of deduction of stamp duty has been granted in view of Section

THE DIRECTOR OF INCOME TAX vs. INDIA HERITAGE FOUNDATION

The appeal is disposed of

Bench: ALOK ARADHE,H.T. NARENDRA PRASAD

disallow the deduction as claimed by the assessee under Section 80IB(10) of the Act and to carry out the assessment 5 afresh in accordance with law after affording an opportunity of hearing to the assessee. 3. Being aggrieved, the assessee filed an appeal before the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Tribunal’, for short). The Tribunal

SYNDICATE BANK vs. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX

The appeal is allowed in

Bench: SATISH CHANDRA SHARMA,R. NATARAJ

disallowance to the extent of Rs.92,14,87,404/- under Section 36 (1)(viia) of the Income Tax Act, 1961; ii) The learned

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 PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER vs. M/S OBULAPURAM MINING

Bench: K.SOMASHEKAR,UMESH M ADIGA

Section 131 of the Act, that they have not rendered any transportation services to the respondent/assessee’s company. They have categorically stated that they have not been engaged in the business of providing transportation services. 11.Insofar as disallowance of expenditure attributable towards illegal mining, the assessing officer has brought on record that the appellant Company was granted three leases

SAINT GOBAIN CRYSTALS & DETECTORS (I) LIMITED vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX

In the result, the order of the tribunal insofar as

Bench: ALOK ARADHE,H.T. NARENDRA PRASAD

87,814/- for Unit No.2 under Section 10B of the Act. The return of income was taken up for scrutiny assessment under Section 143(3) of the Act. The Assessing Officer by an order dated 15.12.2011 disallowed

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

Bench: P.S.DINESH KUMAR,T.G. SHIVASHANKARE GOWDA

disallowed the rental income received from the said two Companies on the ground that the lease amounts received from the said Companies cannot be considered as income derived from export of any software. The CIT(A) held that 4 Software Technology Parks of India - 7 - ITA No. 348 of 2018 A/W ITA No. 349 of 2018 the rental income received

THE PR COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX vs. SHRI H NAGARAJA

Bench: S SUNIL DUTT YADAV,B.S PATIL

disallowed Rs.2 Crores, and therefore, the assessment order passed merged with the appellate order; hence, in view of the judgment of the High Court in the case of DCIT Vs VARMA INDUSTRIAL LTD. – (2001) 250 ITR 472 (KAR), the Revisional Commissioner could not have exercised jurisdiction under Section 263 of the Act to revise the said items

THE PR. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, vs. M/S CERNER HEALTHCARE SOLUTIONS PVT. LTD.,

In the result, the appeal fails and is hereby

Bench: ALOK ARADHE,HEMANT CHANDANGOUDAR

disallowance of Rs.3,87,19,625/- under Sectkion 40(a)(a) for 3 non-deduction of taxes under Section 195 of the I.T.Act

THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX vs. M/S BHARAT FRITZ WERNER LTD

In the result, appeal is disposed of

Bench: ALOK ARADHE,R. NATARAJ

87 TAXMANN.COM 275 (SC). 9 5. On the other hand, learned counsel for the assessee submitted that the revenue did not dispute the expenditure incurred by the assessee and the claim of the assessee for deduction was not under Section 32 and therefore, it was not necessary for the assessee to prove that the tools which were purchased

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

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

THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX GULBARGA vs. M/S MANJUNATHA COTTON AND GINNING FACTORY

The appeals are dismissed

Bench: ARAVIND KUMAR,N.KUMAR

disallowed in computing the total income or loss of an assessee in any order of assessment or reassessment and the said order contains a direction for initiation of penalty proceedings under clause (c) of sub-Section (1), such an order of assessment or reassessment shall be deemed to constitute satisfaction of the Assessing Officer for initiation of the penalty proceedings