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

THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX vs. M/S DAVANGERE DISTRICT CENTRAL CO-OPERATIVE BANK

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

Bench: SATISH CHANDRA SHARMA,V SRISHANANDA

Section 43B, the deductions in respect of any sum payable by the 5 assessee by way of duty, cess or fees by whatsoever name called, shall be given only on actual payment and in the instant case, only the provision for payment of audit cost made and not actually paid during the year"? 4. "Whether on the facts

MANIPAL HEALTH SYSTEMS

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

Bench: ARAVIND KUMAR

Section 43B, the deductions in respect of any sum payable by the 5 assessee by way of duty, cess or fees by whatsoever name called, shall be given only on actual payment and in the instant case, only the provision for payment of audit cost made and not actually paid during the year"? 4. "Whether on the facts

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

Bench: RAVI MALIMATH,N.KUMAR

TDS. Therefore, the assessing officer disallowed the expenditure. The assessee had claimed warranty expenses as deduction. The same was also disallowed on the ground that it was only a provision to be treated as a contingent liability. The assessee had claimed a sum of Rs.2,36,04,819 as deduction of excise duty under Section 43B