PR. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX vs. SHRI. GALI JANARDHANA REDDY

Bench: K.SOMASHEKAR,UMESH M ADIGA

short “ITAT”) in M.P.No.149/Bang/2016 (in ITA No.1450/Bang/2014) dated 06.03.2018 for assessment year 2011-2012 vide Annexure-D. The prayer sought for in this appeal is to set aside the said order by allowing the appeal and confirming the order of the Appellate Commissioner and thereby confirming the order passed by the Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle

L. VENKATARAMANA RAJU vs. UNION OF INDIA

Bench: The Hon'Ble Mr.Justice S.R.Krishna Kumar

short ‘the I.T.Act’) in view of Section 96 of the said Act of 2013 and the Circular dated 25.10.2016 issued by the Central Board for Direct Taxes as well as Section 194-LA of the I.T.Act w.e.f 01.04.2017. (iv) The compensation payable in favour of the petitioners is also exempt from payment of income tax and action of the respondents

M/S SRI BALAJI CORPORATE SERVICES vs. UNION OF INDIA MINISTRY OF FINANCE

Bench: The Hon'Ble Mr.Justice S.R.Krishna Kumar

short ‘the I.T.Act’) in view of Section 96 of the said Act of 2013 and the Circular dated 25.10.2016 issued by the Central Board for Direct Taxes as well as Section 194-LA of the I.T.Act w.e.f 01.04.2017. (iv) The compensation payable in favour of the petitioners is also exempt from payment of income tax and action of the respondents

SHRI M SATHYANARAYANA vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER

Bench: S.SUJATHA,N.K.PATIL

short) on 31.12.2007. The Assessing Officer added an amount of Rs.1,51,200/- as income from house property and Rs.2,30,000/- 3 towards long term capital gains. The appellant being aggrieved by the order of the Assessing Officer filed an appeal before the Commissioner of Income Tax (CIT) -A, Bangalore. The First Appellate Authority confirmed the order passed

THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX vs. M/S URBAN LADDER HOME DECOR SOLUTIONS PVT LTD

Appeals are dismissed

Bench: V KAMESWAR RAO,S RACHAIAH

short] to hold that assessee was not liable to deduct TDS on such payments made to non- residents. - 8 - ITA No. 11 of 2022 c/w ITA No. 12 of 2022, ITA No. 14 of 2022 & ITA No. 15 of 2022 4. These appeals have been admitted on the following substantial questions of law: i) Whether on the facts

SMT. DR. SUDHA KRISHNASWAMY vs. CHIEF COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX

Bench: The Chief Commissioner Of Income Tax

short) by the Chief Commissioner of Income Tax (Intl. Taxn), South Zone, Bengaluru, relating to the Assessment years 2010-11, 2011-12 and 2012-13, whereby the petition filed by the petitioner for condonation of delay to submit the returns have been rejected. 2. The assessee, a non-resident, residing permanently at the United States of America has filed

PR COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-7 vs. M/S TALLY SOLUTIONS PVT LTD

In the result, the appeals fail and are hereby

Bench: ALOK ARADHE,H.T. NARENDRA PRASAD

short). The tribunal by an order dated 29.11.2016 held that since, the amount was capitalized and the same was not claimed as revenue expenditure, the claim of depreciation cannot be disallowed by invoking the provisions of Section 40(a)(ia) of the Act. In the aforesaid factual background, the revenue has filed these appeals. 6. Learned counsel for the revenue

PR. COMMISSIONER OF vs. M/S TALLY SOLUTIONS PVT LTD.,

In the result, the appeals fail and are hereby

Bench: ALOK ARADHE,H.T. NARENDRA PRASAD

short). The tribunal by an order dated 29.11.2016 held that since, the amount was capitalized and the same was not claimed as revenue expenditure, the claim of depreciation cannot be disallowed by invoking the provisions of Section 40(a)(ia) of the Act. In the aforesaid factual background, the revenue has filed these appeals. 6. Learned counsel for the revenue

PR COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-7 vs. M/S TALLY SOLUTIONS PVT LTD

In the result, the appeals fail and are hereby

Bench: ALOK ARADHE,H.T. NARENDRA PRASAD

short). The tribunal by an order dated 29.11.2016 held that since, the amount was capitalized and the same was not claimed as revenue expenditure, the claim of depreciation cannot be disallowed by invoking the provisions of Section 40(a)(ia) of the Act. In the aforesaid factual background, the revenue has filed these appeals. 6. Learned counsel for the revenue

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

short). 3. The tribunal by an order dated 04.01.2017 inter alia by placing reliance on its order passed in the earlier Assessment Year with regard to Transfer Pricing Adjustment (TPA) on account of interest free loan provided to the subsidiary held that Transfer Pricing Adjustment is possible only in cases where comparable uncontrolled transactions entered into between two enterprises

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

The appeals stand disposed of, accordingly

Bench: N.KUMAR,B.SREENIVASE GOWDA

short question that arise for our consideration is whether an unavailed MODVAT credit constitutes income under Section 2(24) of the Income-tax Act and liable to tax. The Apex Court in the aforesaid judgment of Indo Nippon Chemicals had an occasion to consider this aspect. In para 3 of the Judgment, the question was formulated as under

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

The appeals stand disposed of, accordingly

Bench: N.KUMAR,B.SREENIVASE GOWDA

short question that arise for our consideration is whether an unavailed MODVAT credit constitutes income under Section 2(24) of the Income-tax Act and liable to tax. The Apex Court in the aforesaid judgment of Indo Nippon Chemicals had an occasion to consider this aspect. In para 3 of the Judgment, the question was formulated as under

THE PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER vs. M/S OBULAPURAM MINING

Bench: K.SOMASHEKAR,UMESH M ADIGA

short “DCIT”) and to pass such other suitable order as deems fit in this appeal. 2.Heard the learned standing counsel Shri Y.V. Raviraj for appellants/revenue and the learned counsel Shri Mayank Jain for respondent/assessee. Perused the order dated 29.07.2016 passed by the ITAT in ITA Nos.653 (Bang) 2015 for the Assessment Year 2010-11. 3.The factual matrix of this appeal

THE PR. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, vs. M/S. DELHI INTERNATIONAL AIRPORT PVT. LTD.

Bench: S.SUJATHA,S VISHWAJITH SHETTY

short) and to perform certain aeronautical and non- aeronautical services at the IGIA. 3. The appellant filed its return of income for the assessment year under consideration which was taken up for scrutiny assessment. The assessing officer passed assessment order under Section 143(3) r/w 153A of the Act for the assessment year under consideration disallowing the claim

M/S DELHI INTERNATIONAL AIRPORT LTD vs. THE PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX

Bench: S.SUJATHA,S VISHWAJITH SHETTY

short) and to perform certain aeronautical and non- aeronautical services at the IGIA. 3. The appellant filed its return of income for the assessment year under consideration which was taken up for scrutiny assessment. The assessing officer passed assessment order under Section 143(3) r/w 153A of the Act for the assessment year under consideration disallowing the claim

THE PR. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, vs. M/S. DELHI INTERNATIONAL AIRPORT PVT. LTD.,

Bench: S.SUJATHA,S VISHWAJITH SHETTY

short) and to perform certain aeronautical and non- aeronautical services at the IGIA. 3. The appellant filed its return of income for the assessment year under consideration which was taken up for scrutiny assessment. The assessing officer passed assessment order under Section 143(3) r/w 153A of the Act for the assessment year under consideration disallowing the claim

THE PR. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, vs. M/S. DELHI INTERNATIONAL AIRPORT PVT. LTD.,

Bench: S.SUJATHA,S VISHWAJITH SHETTY

short) and to perform certain aeronautical and non- aeronautical services at the IGIA. 3. The appellant filed its return of income for the assessment year under consideration which was taken up for scrutiny assessment. The assessing officer passed assessment order under Section 143(3) r/w 153A of the Act for the assessment year under consideration disallowing the claim

M/S DELHI INTERNATIONAL vs. THE PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER

Bench: S.SUJATHA,S VISHWAJITH SHETTY

short) and to perform certain aeronautical and non- aeronautical services at the IGIA. 3. The appellant filed its return of income for the assessment year under consideration which was taken up for scrutiny assessment. The assessing officer passed assessment order under Section 143(3) r/w 153A of the Act for the assessment year under consideration disallowing the claim