PR. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX vs. M/S SASKEN

Appeals are dismissed at the stage of admission

Bench: ABHAY SHREENIWAS OKA (CJ),S.G.PANDIT

capital in nature. Further the Appellate Authority held that if certain expenses are to be reduced from the total turnover, deduction is to be calculated under Section 10A of the Act. The Appellate Authority also allowed set off of brought forward loss. 4. Aggrieved by the said order of the Appellate Authority, the revenue filed appeal before the Income

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

gains from business and profession under Section 32 can be disallowed specially in case, where the assessee has failed to deduct TDS on payment made to purchase of software and has claimed depreciation under Section 32 of the Act on such software. It is also pointed out that the intent of disallowance under Section

THE PR COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX vs. M/S EXIDE LIFE INSURANCE CO LTD

In the result, both the appeals stand dismissed

Bench: S.SUJATHA,RAVI V HOSMANI

Capital gains” or “Income from other sources”, or in section 199 or in [sections 28 to 43B], the profits and gains of any business of insurance, including any such business carried on by a mutual insurance company or by a co-operative society, shall be computed in accordance with the rules contained in the First Schedule.” 12. First Schedule

THE PR COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX vs. M/S EXIDE LIFE INSURANCE COMPANY LTD

In the result, both the appeals stand dismissed

Bench: S.SUJATHA,RAVI V HOSMANI

Capital gains” or “Income from other sources”, or in section 199 or in [sections 28 to 43B], the profits and gains of any business of insurance, including any such business carried on by a mutual insurance company or by a co-operative society, shall be computed in accordance with the rules contained in the First Schedule.” 12. First Schedule

COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-III vs. M/S. ONMOBILE GLOBAL LTD

In the result, the matter is remitted to the Tribunal to

Bench: ALOK ARADHE,R. NATARAJ

capital in nature and not revenue expenditure. Even the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) has accepted the aforesaid finding of the Assessing Officer. However, the benefit of deduction of stamp duty has been granted in view of Section 35D(3)(c) of the Act. The Tribunal has affirmed 14 the aforesaid finding. The relevant extract of Section

THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX vs. M/S CHAITANYA PROPERTIES PVT LTD.,

The appeal is dismissed

Bench: S.SUJATHA,JAYANT PATEL

capital gain that has to be brought to tax which in his opinion has escaped assessment. 14. On the facts as narrated above and on the basis of provisions of section 147 as well as proviso to section 147 of the Act, the ld. counsel for the assessee contended as follows:- a) Initiation of reassessment proceedings

COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS) vs. M/S POST & BSNL EMPLOYEES

The appeal is dismissed

Bench: N.KUMAR,RATHNAKALA

capital gain that has to be brought to tax which in his opinion has escaped assessment. 14. On the facts as narrated above and on the basis of provisions of section 147 as well as proviso to section 147 of the Act, the ld. counsel for the assessee contended as follows:- a) Initiation of reassessment proceedings

M/S SANKHLA POLYMERS (P) LTD vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD-12(2)

In the result, the appeal relating to the assessment

Bench: D.V.SHYLENDRA KUMAR,B.SREENIVASE GOWDA

capital gains was concerned, it was held to be at 20%, as laid down in the judgment of this court in the case of The Commissioner of Income Tax vs M/s United Breweries Ltd [ITA No 508 of 2001, decided on 26-11-2007] and therefore submits that this analogy in respect of an exempted income of an assessee

THE PR COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX vs. M/S ACUSIS SOFTWARE INDIA

Bench: S.SUJATHA,VINEET KOTHARI

gains derived from the export of the computer software. No costs”. The relevant portion of the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of HCL Technologies Ltd. (supra), is quoted below for ready reference:- Date of Judgment 28-06-2018 I.T.A.No.304/2017 The Pr. Commissioner of Income-tax, CIT (A) & Anr. Vs. M/s. Acusis Software India

M/S KARLE INTERNATIOAL PRIVATE LTD vs. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX

In the result, the order of the income tax appellate tribunal

Bench: ALOK ARADHE,H.T. NARENDRA PRASAD

gains”, is a loss, the assessee shall be entitled to have the amount of such loss set off against his income from any other source under the same head. (2) Where the result of the computation made for any assessment year under Sections 48 to 55 in respect of any short-term capital asset is a loss, the assessee shall

PR COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-5 vs. M/S IGEFI SOFTWARE

Bench: S.SUJATHA,VINEET KOTHARI

Section 10A of the IT Act are allowed only in Export Turnover but not from the Total Turnover then, it would give rise to inadvertent, unlawful, meaningless and illogical result which would cause grave injustice to the Respondent Date of Judgment 26-07-2018 I.T.A.No.69/2016 Pr. Commissioner of Income Tax-5 & Anr. Vs. M/s. IGEFI Software India

THE PR.COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, vs. M/S CERNER HEALTHCARE SOLUTIONS PVT.LTD

Bench: S.SUJATHA,VINEET KOTHARI

capital employed by the comparable during the year is not provided by assessee? 4. Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal is right in law in directing the assessing authority to accept the TPO to consider Foreign Exchange Fluctuation as operating in nature by relying on its earlier decision in the case of Electronics

THE PR. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIT (A) vs. M/S. CAPCO IT SERVICES PVT LTD

Bench: S.SUJATHA,VINEET KOTHARI

Section 10A of the IT Act are allowed only in Export Turnover but not from the Total Turnover then, it would give rise to inadvertent, unlawful, meaningless and illogical result which would cause grave injustice to the Respondent which could have never been the intention of the legislature. 20. Even in common parlance, when the object of the formula

M/S SUBEX LTD vs. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX

In the result, appeal is partly allowed as indicated

Bench: S.SUJATHA,RAVI V HOSMANI

Capital Employed’ for allowing deduction under Section 35D of the IT Act? 2. Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Honourable ITAT was right in law in holding that the cost - 3 - of acquisition of companies cannot be treated as asset for allowing deduction under Section 35D of the IT Act? 3. Whether