THE PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER vs. M/S OBULAPURAM MINING

Bench: K.SOMASHEKAR,UMESH M ADIGA

10(2)(xv) of the 1922 Act. The said expression is wider than the expression "for the purpose of earning profits-Only where the 28 assessee himself is carrying on business, the expenditure incurred by him for the business could be allowed to be deducted, where the assessee is acting as an agent for a third party the expenses incurred

M/S WIPRO LIMITED vs. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX

The appeals stand disposed of, accordingly

Bench: N.KUMAR,B.SREENIVASE GOWDA

TDS of Rs.6,02,14,066/- and advance tax payment of Rs.59,50,80,000/-. The assessee claimed refund of Rs.17,12,21,725/-. The return of income was processed u/s 143(1) on 31.01.2005 and the case was selected for scrutiny and notice u/s 143(2) was issued on 14.02.2005. A questionnaire was issued on 27.04.2006 calling for certain

THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX vs. M/S WIPRO LTD

The appeals stand disposed of, accordingly

Bench: N.KUMAR,B.SREENIVASE GOWDA

TDS of Rs.6,02,14,066/- and advance tax payment of Rs.59,50,80,000/-. The assessee claimed refund of Rs.17,12,21,725/-. The return of income was processed u/s 143(1) on 31.01.2005 and the case was selected for scrutiny and notice u/s 143(2) was issued on 14.02.2005. A questionnaire was issued on 27.04.2006 calling for certain

STATE BANK OF INDIA vs. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER

Appeals stand dismissed

Bench: S.SUJATHA,RAVI V HOSMANI

37 - of residential accommodation provided to the employees by valuing the same as if employees were employees of Central Government, accepted the same. The assessees’ obligation under Section 192 was held to be properly discharged, quashing the proceedings under Section 201[1] and 201[1A] of the Act. Though this order of the Tribunal was challenged by the Revenue

STATE BANK OF INDIA vs. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER

Appeals stand dismissed

Bench: S.SUJATHA,RAVI V HOSMANI

37 - of residential accommodation provided to the employees by valuing the same as if employees were employees of Central Government, accepted the same. The assessees’ obligation under Section 192 was held to be properly discharged, quashing the proceedings under Section 201[1] and 201[1A] of the Act. Though this order of the Tribunal was challenged by the Revenue

STATE BANK OF INDIA vs. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER

Appeals stand dismissed

Bench: S.SUJATHA,RAVI V HOSMANI

37 - of residential accommodation provided to the employees by valuing the same as if employees were employees of Central Government, accepted the same. The assessees’ obligation under Section 192 was held to be properly discharged, quashing the proceedings under Section 201[1] and 201[1A] of the Act. Though this order of the Tribunal was challenged by the Revenue

STATE BANK OF INDIA vs. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER

Appeals stand dismissed

Bench: S.SUJATHA,RAVI V HOSMANI

37 - of residential accommodation provided to the employees by valuing the same as if employees were employees of Central Government, accepted the same. The assessees’ obligation under Section 192 was held to be properly discharged, quashing the proceedings under Section 201[1] and 201[1A] of the Act. Though this order of the Tribunal was challenged by the Revenue

STATE BANK OF INDIA vs. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER

Appeals stand dismissed

Bench: S.SUJATHA,RAVI V HOSMANI

37 - of residential accommodation provided to the employees by valuing the same as if employees were employees of Central Government, accepted the same. The assessees’ obligation under Section 192 was held to be properly discharged, quashing the proceedings under Section 201[1] and 201[1A] of the Act. Though this order of the Tribunal was challenged by the Revenue

STATE BANK OF INDIA vs. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER

Appeals stand dismissed

Bench: S.SUJATHA,RAVI V HOSMANI

37 - of residential accommodation provided to the employees by valuing the same as if employees were employees of Central Government, accepted the same. The assessees’ obligation under Section 192 was held to be properly discharged, quashing the proceedings under Section 201[1] and 201[1A] of the Act. Though this order of the Tribunal was challenged by the Revenue

STATE BANK OF INDIA vs. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER

Appeals stand dismissed

Bench: S.SUJATHA,RAVI V HOSMANI

37 - of residential accommodation provided to the employees by valuing the same as if employees were employees of Central Government, accepted the same. The assessees’ obligation under Section 192 was held to be properly discharged, quashing the proceedings under Section 201[1] and 201[1A] of the Act. Though this order of the Tribunal was challenged by the Revenue

STATE BANK OF INDIA vs. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER

Appeals stand dismissed

Bench: S.SUJATHA,RAVI V HOSMANI

37 - of residential accommodation provided to the employees by valuing the same as if employees were employees of Central Government, accepted the same. The assessees’ obligation under Section 192 was held to be properly discharged, quashing the proceedings under Section 201[1] and 201[1A] of the Act. Though this order of the Tribunal was challenged by the Revenue

STATE BANK OF INDIA vs. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER

Appeals stand dismissed

Bench: S.SUJATHA,RAVI V HOSMANI

37 - of residential accommodation provided to the employees by valuing the same as if employees were employees of Central Government, accepted the same. The assessees’ obligation under Section 192 was held to be properly discharged, quashing the proceedings under Section 201[1] and 201[1A] of the Act. Though this order of the Tribunal was challenged by the Revenue

STATE BANK OF INDIA vs. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER

Appeals stand dismissed

Bench: S.SUJATHA,RAVI V HOSMANI

37 - of residential accommodation provided to the employees by valuing the same as if employees were employees of Central Government, accepted the same. The assessees’ obligation under Section 192 was held to be properly discharged, quashing the proceedings under Section 201[1] and 201[1A] of the Act. Though this order of the Tribunal was challenged by the Revenue

STATE BANK OF INDIA vs. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER

Appeals stand dismissed

Bench: S.SUJATHA,RAVI V HOSMANI

37 - of residential accommodation provided to the employees by valuing the same as if employees were employees of Central Government, accepted the same. The assessees’ obligation under Section 192 was held to be properly discharged, quashing the proceedings under Section 201[1] and 201[1A] of the Act. Though this order of the Tribunal was challenged by the Revenue

STATE BANK OF INDIA vs. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER

Appeals stand dismissed

Bench: S.SUJATHA,RAVI V HOSMANI

37 - of residential accommodation provided to the employees by valuing the same as if employees were employees of Central Government, accepted the same. The assessees’ obligation under Section 192 was held to be properly discharged, quashing the proceedings under Section 201[1] and 201[1A] of the Act. Though this order of the Tribunal was challenged by the Revenue

STATE BANK OF INDIA vs. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER

Appeals stand dismissed

Bench: S.SUJATHA,RAVI V HOSMANI

37 - of residential accommodation provided to the employees by valuing the same as if employees were employees of Central Government, accepted the same. The assessees’ obligation under Section 192 was held to be properly discharged, quashing the proceedings under Section 201[1] and 201[1A] of the Act. Though this order of the Tribunal was challenged by the Revenue

STATE BANK OF INDIA vs. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER

Appeals stand dismissed

Bench: S.SUJATHA,RAVI V HOSMANI

37 - of residential accommodation provided to the employees by valuing the same as if employees were employees of Central Government, accepted the same. The assessees’ obligation under Section 192 was held to be properly discharged, quashing the proceedings under Section 201[1] and 201[1A] of the Act. Though this order of the Tribunal was challenged by the Revenue

STATE BANK OF INDIA vs. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER

Appeals stand dismissed

Bench: S.SUJATHA,RAVI V HOSMANI

37 - of residential accommodation provided to the employees by valuing the same as if employees were employees of Central Government, accepted the same. The assessees’ obligation under Section 192 was held to be properly discharged, quashing the proceedings under Section 201[1] and 201[1A] of the Act. Though this order of the Tribunal was challenged by the Revenue