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 u/s 40(a)(ia) on the transactions discussed above. He shall give the assessee an opportunity to furnish necessary evidence to establish his claim and explain why the proposed additions be not made to income. The AO shall consider the facts, and the results of any enquiries made, as well as the explanation furnished by the assessee, and make

M/S KODAGU DISTRICT CO-OPERATIVE CENTRAL BANK LTD vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX

In the result, the order passed by the Assessing

Bench: ALOK ARADHE,R. NATARAJ

95,846/- disallowed under Section 14A of the Act. The assessee thereupon filed an appeal before the Commissioner of Income

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

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

PR COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-5 vs. M/S NOVELL SOFTWARE DEVELOPMENT (INDIA) PVT.LTD.

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

Bench: ALOK ARADHE,R. NATARAJ

disallowance made under Section 14A of the Act as the assessee had not incurred any exempt income. In support of aforesaid submissions, reliance has been placed on the decision of the Supreme Court in 'CIT Vs. CHETTINAD LOGISTICS (P) LTD.' (2018) 95

SKF TECHNOLOGIES (INDIA) P. LTD., vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX

The Appeal is disposed of

Bench: S.SUJATHA,VINEET KOTHARI

Section 40[a][ia] of the Act could not be made simultaneously on same account. 6. On both the issues, learned Tribunal has remanded the case back to the Assessing Officer for further enquiry into the relevant facts in view of the guidelines given by the learned Tribunal. The relevant portion of the order of the learned Tribunal in this

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

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

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

In the result, the order dated

Bench: ALOK ARADHE,R. NATARAJ

Section 143(3) of the Act on 14.12.2011 by the Assessing Officer after disallowing commission of Rs.2,93,08,446/- and total income of the assessee was assessed at Rs.21,37,96,180/-. Similarly for the Assessment Year 2010-11, commission to the extent of Rs.10,15,95

THE PR.COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIT(A) vs. AMBUTHIRTHA POWER PVT LTD

Appeal is dismissed;

Bench: P.S.DINESH KUMAR,RAMACHANDRA D. HUDDAR

disallowance of Rs.2,95,61,114 made under section 14A of the Act read with Rule 8D by holding that

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

Bench: ALOK ARADHE,M.NAGAPRASANNA

95 and recorded a perverse finding? (iii) Whether the tribunal was correct in holding that the payments made by the assessee in cash exceeding Rs.10,000/- cannot be disallowed by applying Section

WEST PALM DEVELOPMENTS LLP vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF

In the result, the order dated 14

Bench: ALOK ARADHE,ANANT RAMANATH HEGDE

Section 57(iii) of the Act. The return of income was taken up for scrutiny assessment and the Assessing Officer passed an order on 30.11.2011 making a disallowance of a sum of Rs.81,95

THE PR COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIT(A) vs. M/S KARAVALI HOUSING

In the result, appeal stands dismissed

Bench: S.SUJATHA,RAVI V HOSMANI

disallowing the 3 deduction under Section 80IB(10) as amended by the assessee. On further appeal, the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) relying on his own order under ITA 185/MNG/CI(A)MNG/2012-13 dated 14.03.2013 for the assessment year 2010-11, allowed the assessee’s appeal. Aggrieved by the order of the CIT (A), revenue preferred appeal before the Tribunal. Tribunal

THE PR. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (4) vs. M/S CHAMUNDI WINERY AND DISTILLERY

Bench: S.SUJATHA,VINEET KOTHARI

disallowed the said “Distributable Surplus” paid by the Respondent Assessee CHAMUNDI to DIAGEO under Date of Judgment 25-09-2018 I.T.A.No.155/2016 and connected matters The Pr. Commissioner of Income Tax & Ors. Vs. M/s. Chamundi Winery and Distillery 10/137 Section 37 of the Act and also held that the said income earned out of manufacture and sale of liquor

PR. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX vs. M/S CHAMUNDI WINERY AND DISTILLERY

Bench: S.SUJATHA,VINEET KOTHARI

disallowed the said “Distributable Surplus” paid by the Respondent Assessee CHAMUNDI to DIAGEO under Date of Judgment 25-09-2018 I.T.A.No.155/2016 and connected matters The Pr. Commissioner of Income Tax & Ors. Vs. M/s. Chamundi Winery and Distillery 10/137 Section 37 of the Act and also held that the said income earned out of manufacture and sale of liquor

COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX vs. M.R.SAMPANGIRAMAIAH

Bench: P.S.DINESH KUMAR,C.M. POONACHA

95 of 1964 Act. 9.2 Mr.Patil’s contention that condition No.8 of Exs.P2/P4 is in the nature of stand-alone obligation whereunder, the plaintiff should have paid second installment of - 28 - RFA No.178 OF 2015 C/W RFA CROB NO.19 OF 2015 Rs.34,80,000/- so that the 1st defendant could have handed over all original documents of title along with

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

THE PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER vs. M/S OBULAPURAM MINING

Bench: K.SOMASHEKAR,UMESH M ADIGA

95. 46.These are the reliances facilitated relating to the impugned order which is challenged in this appeal by the appellants/revenue. Further, addition has been made mainly on the basis of the sworn statement under Section 131 of Mr. R.Gangadhar. Thereafter, enquiries were made from various banks namely HDFC Bank Ballari, Axis Bank Ballari, Pragrithi Grameena Bank Ballari, Karnataka Bank Ballari