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

disallowance is untenable in law and - 28 - ITA No.53 of 2024 failure to do so has resulted in short computation of income of Rs. 10,90,23,000/- (@30% of Rs.36,34,10,000/-) with a consequent tax effect of Rs.5,74,38,22/-. This has resulted in Loss to revenue. Considering these facts, the assessment order is erroneous

KARNATAKA STATE BEVERAGES CORPORTION LIMITED vs. THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX

Bench: The Hon’Ble Mr. Justice Anand Byrareddy Writ Petition No.12872 Of 2013 (T-It) Connected With Writ Petition No.14687 Of 2014 (T-It), Writ Petition No.15910 Of 2015 (T-It) & Writ Petition No.17514 Of 2015 (T-It) In W.P.No.12872 Of 2013 Between: Karnataka State Beverages Corporation Limited, Represented By It’S Executive Director (Finance), Sri. Shrikant B Vanahalli, Aged About 57 Years, No.78, Seethalakshmi Towers, Mission Road, Bangalore 560 027. …Petitioner

disallowance under Section 14-A of the Act in a sum of Rs.41,28,225/- and provision for ex- gratia Rs.18,90

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

Section 14A of the Act for a sum of Rs.77,72,330/-. (ii) disallowance of interest of Rs.1,90,81,831/- on borrowed

COFFEEDAY GLOBAL LTD. vs. ADDITIONAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX

In the result, the orders dated 21

Bench: ALOK ARADHE,ASHOK S.KINAGI

Section 14A of the Act for a sum of Rs.77,72,330/-. (ii) disallowance of interest of Rs.1,90,81,831/- on borrowed

COFFEEDAY GLOBAL LTD. vs. ADDITIONAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX

In the result, the orders dated 21

Bench: ALOK ARADHE,ASHOK S.KINAGI

Section 14A of the Act for a sum of Rs.77,72,330/-. (ii) disallowance of interest of Rs.1,90,81,831/- on borrowed

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

Bench: S.SUJATHA,VINEET KOTHARI

90,135/-. The question whether disallowance in terms of Section 14A of the Act r/w 8D of the Rules could

PR. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX - 5 vs. M/S NAM ESTATES PRIVATE LIMITED

The appeal stands dismissed

Bench: SATISH CHANDRA SHARMA,S VISHWAJITH SHETTY

90, section 90A or section 91 has not been given on the ground that the payment of such tax was under dispute, and if subsequently such dispute is settled; and the assessee, within six months from the end of the month in which the dispute is settled, furnishes to the Assessing Officer evidence of settlement of dispute and evidence

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

ESSILOR INDIA PVT LTD vs. THE DEPUTY

In the result, the order passed by the Tribunal dated 07

Bench: ALOK ARADHE,SHIVASHANKAR AMARANNAVAR

90 TAXMANN.COM 2 (SC) holding that Rule 8D of the Income Tax Rules, 1962 is prospective and applicable from AY 2008-09, a disallowance under Section

PR,COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX vs. M/S SUBRAMANYA CONSTRUCTIONS

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

Bench: ALOK ARADHE,M.G.S. KAMAL

disallowance under Section 14A of the Act read with Rule 8D of the Rules for an amount of Rs.4,95,90

PR. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX vs. M/S SUBRAMANYA CONSTRUCTIONS

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

Bench: ALOK ARADHE,M.G.S. KAMAL

disallowance under Section 14A of the Act read with Rule 8D of the Rules for an amount of Rs.4,95,90

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

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

90,525/- by placing reliance on the orders passed in the case of the assessee for earlier periods which has not reached finality and even when the ingredients of section 32 are not satisfied to claim depreciation relating to software? (3) Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal is right in law in setting

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

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

90 of the Act in respect of income exempt under Section 10A of the Act by following the decision of this Hon'ble Court in case of Wipro Ltd? 3. Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Tribunal is right in law in allowing claim of credit for state taxes paid outside

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

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

THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX vs. M/S GARNIWAL EXPORTS (P) LTD

Appeal is allowed

Bench: D.V.SHYLENDRA KUMAR,B.S.INDRAKALA

disallowed the deduction claimed in respect of the price of Rs.17,78,155/- received by the assessee by way of transfer of quota opining that the amount represented business income of the assessee; that it cannot be attributed to any export activity as the amount is not by export but received 4 within the country; that Section 80HHC benefit being

THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX vs. M/S. SYNDICATE BANK

The appeals are disposed of

Bench: ALOK ARADHE,RAVI V HOSMANI

disallowed? (ii) Whether the provisions of Section 14A of the Act read with Rule 8D of the Income Tax Rules should be made applicable to all pending matters as the same is clarifactory in nature in view of the consistent stands taken by the department? (iii) Whether the tribunal was correct in holding that the estimated expenditure cannot be treated