PR COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-4 vs. M/S JEANS KNIT PVT LTD

In the result, we do not find any

Bench: ALOK ARADHE,H.T. NARENDRA PRASAD

capital gain earned. It is urged that since, the tribunal has failed to determine the core issue with regard to colorable devise adopted by the 15 assessee, to evade tax, therefore, the matter be remitted to the tribunal for decision afresh in accordance with law. In support of aforesaid submissions, the reliance is placed on decision of Supreme Court

PR COMMISSIONER OF vs. M/S JEANS KNIT PVT LTD

In the result, we do not find any

Bench: ALOK ARADHE,H.T. NARENDRA PRASAD

capital gain earned. It is urged that since, the tribunal has failed to determine the core issue with regard to colorable devise adopted by the 15 assessee, to evade tax, therefore, the matter be remitted to the tribunal for decision afresh in accordance with law. In support of aforesaid submissions, the reliance is placed on decision of Supreme Court

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

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

The appeals stand disposed of, accordingly

Bench: N.KUMAR,B.SREENIVASE GOWDA

Section 145A of the Income- tax Act which was inserted with effect from assessment year 1999-2000. The said provision states that the valuation of stock should include the amount of any tax duty, cess or fee - 94 - actually paid or incurred to bring the goods to its present location and condition. The Department has followed a consistent stand

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

The appeals stand disposed of, accordingly

Bench: N.KUMAR,B.SREENIVASE GOWDA

Section 145A of the Income- tax Act which was inserted with effect from assessment year 1999-2000. The said provision states that the valuation of stock should include the amount of any tax duty, cess or fee - 94 - actually paid or incurred to bring the goods to its present location and condition. The Department has followed a consistent stand

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

Appeal stands dismissed

Bench: S.SUJATHA,RAVI V HOSMANI

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

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

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 INDIGRA EXPORTS P LTD

Bench: S.SUJATHA,VINEET KOTHARI

SECTION 260-A OF INCOME TAX ACT 1961, ARISING OUT OF ORDER DATED 10/11/2015 PASSED IN IT(TP)A NO.193/BANG/2015, FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2010-2011, ANNEXURE-D, PRAYING TO: 1. FORMULATE THE SUBSTANTIAL QUESTIONS OF LAW STATED ABOVE. 2. ALLOW THE APPEAL AND SET ASIDE THE ORDERS PASSED BY THE ITAT, BENGALURU IN IT(TP)A NO.193/BANG/2015 DATED: 10/11/2015