The Commissioner of Income Tax-IV vs. M/s Planet Online Pvt Ltd

Bench: Us Challenging Order Dated 17.04.2013, Passed By The Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Chandigarh Bench 'B'. Chandigarh (Hereinafter Referred To As 'The

3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act') by making numerous additions, and disallowing certain exemptions claimed by NARESH KUMAR 2015.02.13 11:28 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document Chandigarh Income Tax Appeal No.320 of 2013 -2- the assessee. The present appeal relates to Rs.2,37,67,894/-, disallowed

The Commissioner of Income Tax-I vs. M/s Andhra Bank

In the result, the appeal is dismissed

Bench: CHALLA KODANDA RAM,C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY

Section 14A read with Rule 8D of the Rules. The interest on the diverted borrowed capital was also disallowed. Thus, in all, disallowance of Rs.43,85,79,362/- was made. 5 3

Commissioner of Income Tax-2, vs. Agricultural Market Committee,

Bench: : The Hon’Ble Justice Surya Prakash Kesarwani & The Hon’Ble Justice Rajarshi Bharadwaj Date : 28Th February 2024. Appearance: Mr. J. P. Khaitan, Senior Advocate Mr. Somak Basu, Advocate … For The Appellant. Mr. Vipul Kundalia, Advocate Mr. Anurag Roy, Advocate Ms. Oindrila Ghosal, Advocate … For The Respondent. 1. Heard Sri J. P. Khaitan, Learned Senior Advocate Assisted By Sri Somak Basu, Learned Counsel For The Appellant Assessee & Vipul Kundalia, Learned Senior Standing Counsel For The Respondent. 2. This Appeal Was Admitted By This Court By Order Dated 19.08.2011 On Four Substantial Questions Of Law. Learned Counsel For The Appellant Has Stated That The Appellant Does Not Want To Press The Substantial

disallowed interest on borrowed capital under Section 14A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as the ‘Act, 1961’), allowed lesser deduction under Section 80M of the Act, 3

M/s.Tata Teleservices Limited vs. Dy. Commissioner of Income Tax

Bench: SUJOY PAUL,NAMAVARAPU RAJESHWAR RAO

disallowable u/s 14A. In above background apportionment of expenses is done applying section 14A read with Rule 8D as under:- Clause Particulars Amount i Expenditure directly related to exempt income Nil Digitally Signed By:PREM MOHAN CHOUDHARY Signing Date:06.12.2023 16:56:58 Signature Not Verified ITA 163/2018 Page 3

PR COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX vs. R SURYANARAYANA

In the result, the appeal filed by the revenue stands

Bench: RAMESH RANGANATHAN,KONGARA VIJAYA LAKSHMI

disallowance under Section 14A of the Act read with Rule 8D of the Income Tax Rules, 1962. On the first three issues we find that the tribunal has made a thorough factual exercise and took note of the documents and details noted by the CIT(A) and granted relief. With regard to the commission paid to four entities abroad

COMM OF INCOME TAX, HYD vs. M/S. BALAN NATURAL FOOD PRIVATE LTD., HYD

Bench: RAMESH RANGANATHAN,KONGARA VIJAYA LAKSHMI

disallowed the aforesaid amount in terms of Section 14A of the Act. A sum of Rs.3,43,28,658/- being 5% thereof was estimated as expenditure incurred for earning such income. 3

The Commissioner of the Income Tax IV vs. Satya Prasad Anagani,

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

3. Thereupon, the Commissioner of Income Tax issued a notice under Section 263 of the Act to the assessee and held that non consideration of disallowable expenditure under Section 14A

Commissioner of Income Tax, vs. Agricultural Market Committee,

In the result, the appeal (ITA/70/2011) is allowed to the extent indicated

Bench: : The Hon’Ble Justice T.S. Sivagnanam & The Hon’Ble Justice Hiranmay Bhattacharyya Date : 20Th March, 2023 Appearance : Mr. C. Bhaskaran, Adv. Ms. Swapna Das, Adv. …For The Appellant. Mr. Aryak Dutt, Adv. …For The Respondent.. The Court : - This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Under Section 260A Of The Income Tax Act (The Act) Is Directed Against The Order Dated September 30, 2009 Passed By The Income Tax Appellate Tribunal “B” Bench, Kolkata In Ita No.2486/Kol/2007 For The Assessment Year 2003-2004. The Appeal Was Admitted On 18.03.2011 On The Following Substantial Questions Of Law:- “1. Whether The Tribunal Below, While Interpreting Section 36(1)(Viia)(A) Of The Income-Tax Act, 1961, Committed Substantial Error Of Law In Holding That Deduction Under The First Proviso Was Alternative To That Under Sub-Clause (A) & That No Deduction Under The First Proviso Was Allowable If Deduction Had Been Allowed Under Sub-Clause (A) Thereby Rejecting The Appellant’S

Section 14A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 with effect from April 1,2007 and Rule 8D inserted in the Income Tax Rules 1962 on March 24, 2008 was procedural and retrospective and were applicable for the assessment year 2003-2004? 3. Whether the Tribunal below committed substantial error of law in directing the Assessing Officer to decide disallowance

The Commissioner of Income Tax -V, vs. M/S Secunderabad Club

Bench: V.V.S.RAO,RAMESH RANGANATHAN

disallowance under Section 14A was not worked out.” 3. In W.P.(C) 2795/2008 (for AY 2005-06) the allegations and grounds

Commissioner of Income Tax-III, vs. M/s Sree Rayalaseema Green Energy Limited,

Section 14A. The tribunal has held that the aforesaid disallowance was reasonable. The Assessing Officer had disallowed an amount of Rs.69,65,686/- and held this was the reasonable expenditure incurred to earn dividend income of Rs.3,95,439/-. In view of the facts noticed above, the contention of the revenue is rather far-fetched, if not perverse and illogical

Teh Commissioner of Incoem Tax (Central) vs. Parupati Farms,

The appeal is disposed of

3 9.2 Whether on the facts, in the circumstances and on the grounds and contentions urged: (a) The Tribunal was right in remitting the issue to the Assessing Officer for arriving at the expenditure disallowable under Section 14A

PRL COMM OF INCOME TAX-2, HYDERABAD vs. M/S NUZIVIDU SWATHI COASTAL CONSORTIUM, HYDERABAD

In the result, the appeal is disposed of

Bench: M.GANGA RAO,RAMESH RANGANATHAN

3. The assessee thereupon filed an appeal before Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) who by an order dated 20.02.2015 dismissed the appeal preferred by the assessee. The assessee thereupon filed an appeal before Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (hereinafter referred to as 'the tribunal' for short). The tribunal by an order dated 11.09.2015 inter alia held that the object

The Principal Commissioner of Income Tax vs. M/s.Midwest Granites Private Limited

Appeal stands dismissed accordingly

Bench: RAMESH RANGANATHAN,KONGARA VIJAYA LAKSHMI

3. Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, Tribunal is right in law in setting aside the disallowance of expenditure incurred on earning exempt income under Section 14A

The Commissioner of Income tax III, vs. Biraj Kavar Galada

The appeals are disposed of

Bench: RAMESH RANGANATHAN,M.SATYANARAYANA MURTHY

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

THE PRL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-II, VISAKHAPATNAM vs. L SURYAKANTHAM, VISAKHAPATNAM

In the result, the appeal fails and is hereby dismissed

Bench: RAMESH RANGANATHAN,KONGARA VIJAYA LAKSHMI

3) of the Act. The Transfer Pricing Officer treated the expenditure incurred on the advertisement and marketing and product promotion as an international transaction and determined the arms length price by applying bright line method. Pursuant to the order passed by the Transfer Pricing Officer, a draft assessment order was passed by the Assessing Officer, by which disallowance

The Commissioner of Income Tax IV vs. M/s. Nav Bharat Enterprises Limited

disallowance of deduction under section 14A made by assessing authority even though the same is in accordance with law? (12) Whether the order of the tribunal can be said as perverse in nature as the tribunal has relied on its earlier decisions which have not reached finality since appeals preferred by Revenue under section 260A against those orders

The Commissioner of Income Tax- V, vs. Dr. M.Venkataramana,

Bench: The Commissioner Of Income Tax. After Considering The Plus & Minus Points, The Appeal Was Finalised, Whereby Some Points Were

3. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case- a) The Tribunal is justified and right in law in interfering with the disallowance made by the Assessing Officer invoking section 14A

Commissioner of Income Tax-V, vs. Sri S.Venkat Reddy, (PAN ALAPS4009A)

In the result, the appeal fails and is hereby

3) of the Act. The Assessing Officer vide order dated 30.03.2005 disallowed the claims of the assessee in respect of merger expenses, interest on income tax, interest of delayed payment to SSI, commission paid to M/s. Mysore Sales, allocated charges, prior period expenses, debts and advances written off, bad debts, cessation of liabilities under Section