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

The appeals stand disposed of, accordingly

Bench: N.KUMAR,B.SREENIVASE GOWDA

36. The Apex Court had an occasion to go into the validity of the agreements entered into under these provisions and their enforceability in the case of UNION OF INDIA AND ANOTHER VS. AZADI BACHAO ANDOLAN AND ANOTHER reported in 263 ITR 706. Dealing with the purpose of provisions for avoidance of double taxation, the Supreme Court at page

AZIM PREMJI TRUSTEE COMPANY PVT LTD vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX

In the result, I pass the following:-

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

36 have been issued at that time on account of being beyond the time limit specified under the provisions of Section 149(1)(b) as they stood prior to 01.04.2021; in other words, the proviso mandates that if a notice could not have been issued under Section 148 as being barred by limitation under Section 149(1

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

In the result, the appeals are partly allowed

Bench: B.MANOHAR,DILIP B.BHOSALE

gains of business or profession”. It is not the case of assessee that the expenditure incurred by them is covered by Sections 30 to 36 of the Act, and even if that was so the question of allowing the expenditure under Section 37(1) of the Act would not arise. 18. In our opinion, the expenditure towards the religious funds

THE COMMISSIONER vs. M/S VIJAYA BANK

Bench: ALOK ARADHE,H.T. NARENDRA PRASAD

vii) of the Act, as it was in existence prior to its amendment with effect from 01.04.2008, confined the benefit of Financial Corporation and the expression ‘Financial Corporation’ included the Government Company as well as Public Company. It is further submitted that the assessee, namely, Vijaya Bank in any case, is a Public as well as Government Company

SMT. M R PRABHAVATHY vs. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX

Bench: The Hon’Ble Mr. Justice K.Natarajan Election Petition No.1 Of 2019 Connected With Election Petition No.2 Of 2019

gainful employment except his influence in political background of his grand father, father, uncle, whereas the respondent No.2 - A.Manju is a qualified law graduate and Ex-Minister and Ex-member of various organization was contested and succeeded against JDS. The BJP had expected the Hassan constituency to be the winning constituency. The respondent No.1 while filing his nomination

THE PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER vs. M/S OBULAPURAM MINING

Bench: K.SOMASHEKAR,UMESH M ADIGA

VII.—The provisions of this section shall apply to a proceeding for the execution of a decree and references in this section to any suit, issue or former suit shall be construed as references, respectively, to a proceeding for the execution of the decree, question arising in such proceeding and a former proceeding for the execution of that decree. Explanation

THE COMMISIONER OF INCOME-TAX vs. M/S IBC KNOWLEDGE PARK PVT LTD

In the result, the appeals filed by the Revenue

Bench: B.V.NAGARATHNA,JAYANT PATEL

gains of business and profession and therefore, depreciation has to be allowed. That reference made to Section 24 of the Act by the counsel for the Revenue is incorrect. He, therefore, contended that the Tribunal has rightly granted the depreciation on elevators also. - 18 - 15. We have considered the aforesaid submissions in light of the lease agreement dated 11/8/2003, which

THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX vs. M/S. IBC KNOWLEDGE PARK PVT. LTD.,

In the result, the appeals filed by the Revenue

Bench: B.V.NAGARATHNA,JAYANT PATEL

gains of business and profession and therefore, depreciation has to be allowed. That reference made to Section 24 of the Act by the counsel for the Revenue is incorrect. He, therefore, contended that the Tribunal has rightly granted the depreciation on elevators also. - 18 - 15. We have considered the aforesaid submissions in light of the lease agreement dated 11/8/2003, which

THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX vs. M/S. IBC KNOWLEDGE PARK PVT. LTD.,

In the result, the appeals filed by the Revenue

Bench: B.V.NAGARATHNA,JAYANT PATEL

gains of business and profession and therefore, depreciation has to be allowed. That reference made to Section 24 of the Act by the counsel for the Revenue is incorrect. He, therefore, contended that the Tribunal has rightly granted the depreciation on elevators also. - 18 - 15. We have considered the aforesaid submissions in light of the lease agreement dated 11/8/2003, which

PR. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-5 vs. M/S. PUMA SPORTS INDIA P., LTD.,

The appeal stands dismissed

Bench: SATISH CHANDRA SHARMA,V SRISHANANDA

36,680/-. The assessing authority passed an order under Section 143(3) read with Section 144(C)(13) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as ‘Act’) by making transfer pricing adjustment for Rs.4,16,65,106/- on the basis of the order passed under Section 92CA of the Act dated 24.10.2016. The assessing authority also made other

THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX vs. M/S. STATE BANK OF MYSORE

In the result, the order passed by the tribunal

Bench: ALOK ARADHE,H.T. NARENDRA PRASAD

vii) of the Act and hence provisions of Section 41(1)/41(4) of the Act are not attracted on a subsequent recovery of the 3 written off debt, when the provision created under Section 36(1)(viia) of the Act is allowed as a deduction and recorded a perverse finding? (ii) Whether the Appellate Authorities were correct in holding

M/S BHORUKA ENGINEERING INDS. LTD vs. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX

Appeal is allowed

Bench: B.MANOHAR,N.KUMAR

1 and the alluring logic of tax avoidance. We now live in a welfare state whose financial needs, if backed by the law, have to be respected and met. We must recognize that there is behind taxation laws as much moral sanction as behind any other welfare legislation and it is a pretence to say that avoidance of taxation

PR COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX vs. M/S IND SING DEVELOPERS P LTD

The appeal is dismissed

Bench: B.V.NAGARATHNA,JAYANT PATEL

VII. parties shall, after the First Party complies with their obligations, sign a formal agreement and submit for the approval of Income Tax Authorities.” 20. What strikes us from the above MOU is that assessee was not at all the owner of the property on the said date. Shri. Gopalakrishna Gowda had agreed to purchase the subject property through

SATISH N vs. STATE OF KARNATAKA

Bench: The Hon’Ble Mr. Justice Raghvendra S. Chauhan

36. The salvo fired by Mr. Poovayya has met with a barrage of submissions submitted by Mr. A.S.Ponnanna, the learned Additional Advocate General, Mr. D. Ashwathappa, Additional Government Advocate, Prof. Ravi Verma Kumar, Mr. S. S. Naganand and Mr. S.P. Shankar, the learned Senior Counsel, and by Mr. Zeric Dastur and Mr. Faisal Sherwani, the learned counsel. Instead of individually

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

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

VII of the said KIAD Act are intravires the Constitution of India. [ii] The notifications dated 09.12.2016 as well as 20.07.2018 issued under Sections 28[1] and 28[4] of the KIAD Act are legally valid and enforceable. 24 [iii] The petitioners are entitled to compensation in terms of the Act, 2013 as per the undertaking given by the KIADB

L. VENKATARAMANA RAJU vs. UNION OF INDIA

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

VII of the said KIAD Act are intravires the Constitution of India. [ii] The notifications dated 09.12.2016 as well as 20.07.2018 issued under Sections 28[1] and 28[4] of the KIAD Act are legally valid and enforceable. 24 [iii] The petitioners are entitled to compensation in terms of the Act, 2013 as per the undertaking given by the KIADB

THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX vs. M/S ING VYSYA BANK LTD

The appeal is dismissed

Bench: P.S.DINESH KUMAR,C.M. POONACHA

vii) of the IT act and Section 36(2) of IT Act, 1961, has been amended to rationalize the provisions regarding allowability of bad debt with effect from April 1, 1989. It is further stated that the Legislative intention behind the amendment was to eliminate the litigation on the issue of allowability of 'bad debt' by doing away with

LANGDON & SEAH CONSULTING INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED

The appeal is dismissed

Bench: VINEET KOTHARI

vii) of the IT act and Section 36(2) of IT Act, 1961, has been amended to rationalize the provisions regarding allowability of bad debt with effect from April 1, 1989. It is further stated that the Legislative intention behind the amendment was to eliminate the litigation on the issue of allowability of 'bad debt' by doing away with