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

The appeals are dismissed

Bench: SATISH CHANDRA SHARMA,SURAJ GOVINDARAJ

section 40(a)(ia) is not attracted and the authorities were justified in disallowing the said deduction and treating I.T.A. NO.141 OF 2020 c/w I.T.A. NO.151 OF 2020 18 the said amount as the income of the Assessee and claiming tax on that amount. 9. Insofar as the second substantial question of law is concerned, the facts

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

Section 35(2AB) in respect of Research and Development expenditure in a sum of ` 89,35,48,193/-, a sum of ` 48,41,82,071/- was disallowed

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

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

Appeal is allowed

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

disallowance of Rs.53,367/- under Section 14A of the IT Act; 1 Business Transfer Agreement 2 The Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeal) I.T.A No.201/2017 5 (ii) addition under Section 45(4) with regard to: (a) land at Adugodi Rs.54,89

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

89,42,83,297/-. Initially, a draft order of assessment was passed. The assessee thereupon filed objections before Dispute Resolution Panel, which upheld the order of the Assessing Officer by an order dated 17.09.2012. On the basis of directions issued by before Dispute Resolution Panel, the Assessing Officer passed a final order of assessment on 26.10.2012. The assessee thereupon filed

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

THE PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER vs. M/S OBULAPURAM MINING

Bench: K.SOMASHEKAR,UMESH M ADIGA

disallowance of Rs.220,89,67,632/- on the allegations 48 based on surmises and conjectures, and hear-say evidences to the effect that 40% of the business is illegal and therefore explanation (1) to 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

PR COMMISSIONER OF vs. KARNATAKA STATE INDUSTRIAL INFRASTRUCTURE

In the result, we find no merit in the

Bench: ALOK ARADHE,H.T. NARENDRA PRASAD

Section 14A of the Act for a sum of Rs.1,76,00,000/- and difference of Rs.1,57,35,410/- was disallowed and added back to income. The assessing authority also made other disallowances. Being aggrieved, the assesse filed appeal before the Commissioner of 12 Income Tax, who, by order dated 17.9.2013 has deleted the additions made by the assessing

PR COMMISSIONER OF vs. KARNATAKA STATE INDUSTRIAL INFRASTRUCTURE

In the result, we find no merit in the

Bench: ALOK ARADHE,H.T. NARENDRA PRASAD

Section 14A of the Act for a sum of Rs.1,76,00,000/- and difference of Rs.1,57,35,410/- was disallowed and added back to income. The assessing authority also made other disallowances. Being aggrieved, the assesse filed appeal before the Commissioner of 12 Income Tax, who, by order dated 17.9.2013 has deleted the additions made by the assessing

PR COMMISSIONER OF vs. KARNATAKA STATE INDUSTRIAL INFRASTRUCTURE

In the result, we find no merit in the

Bench: ALOK ARADHE,H.T. NARENDRA PRASAD

Section 14A of the Act for a sum of Rs.1,76,00,000/- and difference of Rs.1,57,35,410/- was disallowed and added back to income. The assessing authority also made other disallowances. Being aggrieved, the assesse filed appeal before the Commissioner of 12 Income Tax, who, by order dated 17.9.2013 has deleted the additions made by the assessing

PR COMMISSIONER OF vs. KARNATAKA STATE INDUSTRIAL INFRASTRUCTURE

In the result, we find no merit in the

Bench: ALOK ARADHE,H.T. NARENDRA PRASAD

Section 14A of the Act for a sum of Rs.1,76,00,000/- and difference of Rs.1,57,35,410/- was disallowed and added back to income. The assessing authority also made other disallowances. Being aggrieved, the assesse filed appeal before the Commissioner of 12 Income Tax, who, by order dated 17.9.2013 has deleted the additions made by the assessing

M/S CANARA BANK BSCA SECTION vs. THE ASST COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE-11(2)

Bench: N.KUMAR,RATHNAKALA

disallowance under section 14A of the Act in a sum of Rs.16,50,00,000/-. The assessee had claimed the following income as exempt under section 10 of the Act. - 6 - [a] Dividends u/s. 10[33] Rs. 52,00,27,446/- [b] Interest on tax free bonds u/s. 10[15][h] of the Act Rs.156,66,73,929/- [c] Interest

COMMISSIONER OF INCOME vs. SRI SCORPIO ENGINEERING

Bench: B.V.NAGARATHNA,JAYANT PATEL

disallowance would be made if after deduction of tax during the previous 7 year, the same has been paid on or before the due date of filing of return of income as specified in sub-section (1) of Section 139. 1’his has been given retrospective effect from 1st April 2010. 16.5:Of course. the Legislature has given the effect

THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX vs. M/S VIJAYA BANK

In the result, the appeal is hereby dismissed

Bench: ALOK ARADHE,R. NATARAJ

Section 14A are satisfied in the case of assessee to attract such a disallowance? 2. Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal is right in law in setting aside the disallowance of valuation of loss on HTM Securities amounting to Rs.151,48,15,234 by relying upon earlier order which has not reached finality

PR COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX vs. M/S ENNOBLE CONSTRUCTION

Bench: KRISHNA S.DIXIT,P.KRISHNA BHAT

Section 260A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter ‘1961 Act’) had framed the following question, as the substantial question of law: “Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal is justified in law in setting aside the disallowance of Rs.5,89

THE PR COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX vs. M/S VSL MINING COMPANY PVT LTD

Appeal is dismissed as being

Bench: S.G.PANDIT,C.M. POONACHA

89,54,044/- and the balance tax payable at `44,31,32,567/-. 3. It is further forthcoming that a survey under Section 133A of the IT Act was conducted on 25.3.2008 and search under Section 132 of the IT Act was conducted on 1.4.2008 in respect of one Sri Manoj Kumar Jain5, wherein the Revenue alleges to have recovered

PR COMMISSIONER OFINCOME TAX vs. M/S SN BUILDERS & DEVELOPERS

Bench: SATISH CHANDRA SHARMA,V SRISHANANDA

89,786/- as deduction under Section 801B(10) of the Income Tax Act. The assessing Officer, on examination of the eligibility criteria as is stipulated under Section 801B(10) of the Income Tax Act concluded that the respondent did not fulfill the condition 'C' laid down in the said provision and disallowed