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

4. The factual background, in which the aforesaid questions of law arise for our consideration need mention, which are stated infra. The assessee is engaged in the manufacture and export of readymade garments and also engaged in doing job works. The assessee is a 100% export oriented unit. For the facility of reference, facts from I.T.A.No.559/2015 are being referred

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

4. Learned Senior counsel for the assessee while inviting the attention of this court to the return of income for the Assessment year 2008-09 submitted that the assessee has neither claimed any deduction under Section 10B of the Act in respect of any of the three units of the assessee nor has filed any audit report in Form

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 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

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

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 vs. M/S WIPRO LIMITED

In the result, the appeal is disposed of in terms

Bench: ALOK ARADHE,H.T. NARENDRA PRASAD

4. In respect of claim of the assessee for computation of profit of overseas software development center, the matter was remitted to the Assessing Officer to decide the issue in the light of the order passed in the assessee's own case for the Assessment Year 2004-05 and Assessment Year 2007-08. In respect of exclusion of interest income

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

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