M/S FIDELITY BUSINESS SERVICES INDIA PVT LTD vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX

Bench: S.SUJATHA,VINEET KOTHARI

201 ITR 674] had held that the power of the Tribunal under Section 254 of the Act can be exercised only in relation to the grounds raised in the appeal and the Tribunal cannot go beyond the scope of the appeal and decide the question which does not form the subject matter of the appeal. In that case, the Assessee

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

Appeals are dismissed

Bench: V KAMESWAR RAO,S RACHAIAH

gains derived from the alienation of any such right or property which are contingent on the productivity, use, or disposition thereof ; and (b) payments of any kind received as consideration for the use of, or the right to use, any industrial, commercial, or scientific equipment, other than payments derived by an enterprise described in paragraph 1 of Article 8 (Shipping

PR. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-5 vs. M/S PNB METLIFE INDIA

Bench: S.SUJATHA,RAVI V HOSMANI

201 (Bombay)] which is pending before the Hon’ble Apex Court in Civil Appeal No.3921/2016. Being Aggrieved by the order of the Tribunal, the revenue has preferred the present appeal. 7. The learned counsel Sri.E.I.Sanmathi appearing for the appellants-Revenue submitted that the Tribunal grossly erred in deciding that the assessee Company has correctly computed the profits of life insurance

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

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 submitted that the assessee had purchased the software from non 9 resident

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

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 submitted that the assessee had purchased the software from non 9 resident

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

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 submitted that the assessee had purchased the software from non 9 resident

COMMISIONER OF INCOME TAX (EXEMPTIONS) vs. MANIPAL HOTEL & RESTAURANT

Bench: S.SUJATHA,VINEET KOTHARI

201 OF 2015 BETWEEN: 1. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (EXEMPTIONS) C.R. BUILDINGS, QUEENS ROAD, BANGALORE. 2. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE-1(1), UDUPI. …APPELLANTS (BY MR.SANMATHI E I, ADV.) AND: MANIPAL HOTEL & RESTAURANT MANAGEMENT COLLEGE TRUST, VALLEY VIEW INTERNATIONAL, MANIPAL-576104. PAN:AAATM2175J …RESPONDENT (BY MR.S.PARTHASARATHI & SMT.SHEETAL BOARKAR, ADVS.) Date of Judgment 14-08-2018 I.T.A.No.201/2015 Commissioner

M/S SITARAM JINDAL FOUNDATION vs. THE ADDL. DIRECTOR OF

Appeal is allowed

Bench: P.S.DINESH KUMAR,T.G. SHIVASHANKARE GOWDA

capital gain accrues on such transfer, are to be treated as income for purposes of computation Section 11 of the Act? iii. Whether the Appellate Tribunal is justified in disallowing the claim of the appellant-Trust merely relying on the decision of the Hon'ble Calcutta High Court in the case of Hindusthan Welfare Trust v. DIT(E) reported

THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX vs. SRI. R. CHARUCHANDRA

Appeal is hereby dismissed

Bench: ARAVIND KUMAR,B.A.PATIL

201 …RESPONDENT (BY SRI MALLIKARJUN SAHUKAR, ADV - ABSENT ) THIS APPEAL IS FILED UNDER SECTION 260A OF INCOME TAX ACT PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE JUDGMENT AND ORDER DATED 24.08.2012 PASSED BY THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, PANAJI BENCH, PANAJI IN ITA NO.181/PNJ/2011 CONFIRMING THE JUDGMENT AND ORDER DATED 10.08.2011 PASSED IN ITA NO.19/DCIT/CCI/BELGAUM/CIT(A)-VI/B’LORE/2010- 11 PASSED

M/S DELHI INTERNATIONAL vs. THE PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER

Bench: S.SUJATHA,S VISHWAJITH SHETTY

capital items and specifications thereof are laid down by the Government/Bureau of Civil Aviation Security (BCAS). As stated above, PSF is levied under Rule 88 of the Aircraft Rules, 1937 and covers security component as well as facilitation. While the fee is collected by the licensee of the airports, i.e., the airport operator, through the airlines, the security component thereof

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

Bench: S.SUJATHA,S VISHWAJITH SHETTY

capital items and specifications thereof are laid down by the Government/Bureau of Civil Aviation Security (BCAS). As stated above, PSF is levied under Rule 88 of the Aircraft Rules, 1937 and covers security component as well as facilitation. While the fee is collected by the licensee of the airports, i.e., the airport operator, through the airlines, the security component thereof

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

Bench: S.SUJATHA,S VISHWAJITH SHETTY

capital items and specifications thereof are laid down by the Government/Bureau of Civil Aviation Security (BCAS). As stated above, PSF is levied under Rule 88 of the Aircraft Rules, 1937 and covers security component as well as facilitation. While the fee is collected by the licensee of the airports, i.e., the airport operator, through the airlines, the security component thereof

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

Bench: S.SUJATHA,S VISHWAJITH SHETTY

capital items and specifications thereof are laid down by the Government/Bureau of Civil Aviation Security (BCAS). As stated above, PSF is levied under Rule 88 of the Aircraft Rules, 1937 and covers security component as well as facilitation. While the fee is collected by the licensee of the airports, i.e., the airport operator, through the airlines, the security component thereof

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

Bench: S.SUJATHA,S VISHWAJITH SHETTY

capital items and specifications thereof are laid down by the Government/Bureau of Civil Aviation Security (BCAS). As stated above, PSF is levied under Rule 88 of the Aircraft Rules, 1937 and covers security component as well as facilitation. While the fee is collected by the licensee of the airports, i.e., the airport operator, through the airlines, the security component thereof

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

Bench: S.SUJATHA,S VISHWAJITH SHETTY

capital items and specifications thereof are laid down by the Government/Bureau of Civil Aviation Security (BCAS). As stated above, PSF is levied under Rule 88 of the Aircraft Rules, 1937 and covers security component as well as facilitation. While the fee is collected by the licensee of the airports, i.e., the airport operator, through the airlines, the security component thereof

THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME - TAX vs. M/S BIOCON LTD.,

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

Bench: ALOK ARADHE,H.T. NARENDRA PRASAD

Gains of Business or Profession”. 7. Thus, from perusal of Section 37 (1) of the Act, it is evident that the aforesaid provision permits deduction for the expenditure laid out or expnded and does not contain a requirement that there has to be a pay out. If an expenditure has been incurred, provision of Section

PR. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX vs. M/S CHAMUNDI WINERY AND DISTILLERY

Bench: S.SUJATHA,VINEET KOTHARI

SECTION 37 OF THE ACT. Page No 7 CIT Vs. Rajasthan State Government Sugar Mills Ltd 393 ITR 421 (Raj) 32-42 8 CIT Vs. G Balraj [2017] 390 ITR 50 (Kar) 43-47 10 CIT Vs. Chandulal Keshaval & Co., 38 ITR 601 (SC) 58-63 15 Sasoon J David

THE PR. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (4) vs. M/S CHAMUNDI WINERY AND DISTILLERY

Bench: S.SUJATHA,VINEET KOTHARI

SECTION 37 OF THE ACT. Page No 7 CIT Vs. Rajasthan State Government Sugar Mills Ltd 393 ITR 421 (Raj) 32-42 8 CIT Vs. G Balraj [2017] 390 ITR 50 (Kar) 43-47 10 CIT Vs. Chandulal Keshaval & Co., 38 ITR 601 (SC) 58-63 15 Sasoon J David