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

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

PR COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX vs. M/S UNITED SPIRITS LTD

Bench: S.SUJATHA,RAVI V HOSMANI

vii) with effect from 01.04.1989, the assesee (s) is now required not only to debit the profit and loss account but simultaneously also reduce loans and advances or the debtors from the asset side of the balance sheet to the extent of the corresponding amount so that, at the end of the year, the amount of loans and advances/debtors

PR COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX vs. M/S ENNOBLE CONSTRUCTION

Bench: KRISHNA S.DIXIT,P.KRISHNA BHAT

vii) relevant admissible evidence has not been taken into consideration; (viii) inadmissible evidence has been taken into consideration; (ix) legal principles have not been applied in appreciating the evidence; or (x) the evidence has been misread…” These tests are stated to be illustrative and in no way exhaustive of the powers of the High Court to entertain an appeal

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

THE PR. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX vs. M/S CANARA HOUSING DEVELOPMENT COMPANY

In the result, the above appeal is allowed and the

Bench: S.G.PANDIT,C.M. POONACHA

vii. It is a clear case of mutual understanding and consent between the partners of the assessee – firm as well as the parties to the transaction that Dayanand Pai acted on behalf of the assessee – firm and not in his personal individual capacity. viii. Section 14 of the Act of 1932 deals with the property belonging to the partnership firm