M/S UDAYA SOUHARDA CREDIT CO-OP SOCIETY LTD vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER

In the result, Writ appeals stand dismissed

Bench: S.SUJATHA,S RACHAIAH

depreciation in the following year and deeming it to be part of that allowance ; the effect of deeming it to be part of that allowance is that it falls in the following year within Clause (vi) and has to be deducted as allowance.”” 14. In the case of State of Maharashtra V/s. Laljit Rajshi Shah and Others

M/S SWABHIMANI SOUHARDA CREDIT CO-OPERATIVE LTD vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER (ITO) WARD-5(2)(3

In the result, Writ appeals stand dismissed

Bench: S.SUJATHA,S RACHAIAH

depreciation in the following year and deeming it to be part of that allowance ; the effect of deeming it to be part of that allowance is that it falls in the following year within Clause (vi) and has to be deducted as allowance.”” 14. In the case of State of Maharashtra V/s. Laljit Rajshi Shah and Others

M/S SWABHIMANI SOUHARDA CREDIT CO OPERATIVE LTD vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER (ITO) WARD-5(2)(3)

In the result, Writ appeals stand dismissed

Bench: S.SUJATHA,S RACHAIAH

depreciation in the following year and deeming it to be part of that allowance ; the effect of deeming it to be part of that allowance is that it falls in the following year within Clause (vi) and has to be deducted as allowance.”” 14. In the case of State of Maharashtra V/s. Laljit Rajshi Shah and Others

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

Bench: S.SUJATHA,VINEET KOTHARI

deemed to be an assessee in default in respect of the amount of tax payable by him or it and all the provisions of this Act for the collection and recovery of income-tax shall apply. Explanation… 81a[***] Section 115QA: Tax on distributed income to shareholder: (1) Not withstanding anything contained in any other provision of this Act, in addition

M/S KILARA POWER PVT. LTD., vs. THE INCOME -TAX OFFICER

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

Bench: ALOK ARADHE,H.T. NARENDRA PRASAD

deemed to be the total income of the assessee and the tax payable by the assessee on such total income shall be the amount of income-tax at the rate of ten per cent. (2) Every assessee, being a company, shall, for the purposes of this section prepare its profit and loss account for the relevant previous year in accordance

M/S CANARA BANK BSCA SECTION vs. THE ASST COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE-11(2)

Bench: N.KUMAR,RATHNAKALA

dividends and interest for which the assessee has to incur any expenditure. This is the consequence of computerization, online transaction through NEFT[National Electronic Fund Transfer], RTGS [Real Time Gross Settlement] and also DEMAT Accounts. The assessing authority should take note of these developments in deciding whether any expenditure is incurred in earning the said income. The discussion

PR COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-5 vs. M/S NOVELL SOFTWARE DEVELOPMENT (INDIA) PVT.LTD.

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

Bench: ALOK ARADHE,R. NATARAJ

DEEMED FIT, IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE. THIS I.T.A. COMING ON FOR HEARING, THIS DAY, ALOK ARADHE J., DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: JUDGMENT This appeal under Section 260A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as the Act for short) has been preferred by the revenue. The subject matter of the appeal pertains to the Assessment year

THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX vs. M/S. GOKALDAS IMAGES PVT.LTD

In the result, the appeal is disposed of

Bench: ALOK ARADHE,H.T. NARENDRA PRASAD

depreciation was also not allowed. 3. The assessee thereupon filed an appeal before the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) who by an order dated 25.02.2013 inter alia held that advance of Rs.53.77 Crores given to M/s Hinduja Relators Pvt. Ltd. is only out of commercial expediency and can be considered as advance for business purpose. It was further held that

THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX vs. M/S WEIZMANN HOMES LTD

Bench: B.MANOHAR,N.KUMAR

deemed to be an amount equal to thirty per cent of such book profit. (2) Every assessee, being a company, shall, for the purposes of this section prepare its profit and loss account for the relevant previous year in accordance with the provisions of Parts II and III of Schedule VI to the Companies

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

In the result, the appeal fails and is hereby dismissed

Bench: ALOK ARADHE,HEMANT CHANDANGOUDAR

deemed to be an amount equal to thirty per cent. of such book profit. (2) Every assessee, being a company, shall, for the purposes of this section prepare its profit 7 and loss account for the relevant previous year in accordance with the provisions of Parts II and III of Schedule VI to the Companies

COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX vs. M/S. SYNDICATE BANK

In the result, the appeal is disposed of

Bench: ALOK ARADHE,RAVI V HOSMANI

DEEMED FIT AND SET ASIDE THE APPELLATE ORDER DATED 13.06.2014 PASSED IN ITA NO.681/BANG/2012 BY THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, ‘C’ BENCH, BANGALORE AS SOUGHT FOR, IN THE ABOVE CASE. THIS APPEAL COMING ON FOR HEARING, THIS DAY, ALOK ARADHE J., DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: JUDGMENT Sri. Jeevan J. Neeralgi, learned counsel for the appellants. Sri. T. Suryanarayana, learned counsel

COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX vs. M/S SYNDICATE BANK

In the result, the appeal is dismissed

Bench: ALOK ARADHE,H.T. NARENDRA PRASAD

DEEMED FIT. II. SET ASIDE THE APPELLATE ORDER DATED 14-03-2014 PASSED IN ITA NO.680/BANG/2012 AND ITA NO.708/B/2012 BY THE ITAT, ‘C’ BENCH, BANGALORE. THIS I.T.A. COMING ON FOR HEARING, THIS DAY, ALOK ARADHE J., DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: JUDGMENT Mr.E.I.Sanmathi, learned counsel for the revenue. Mr.T.Suryanarayana, learned counsel for the assessee. 2. This appeal under Section

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

deemed income, which is book profit of the assessee is concerned, the assessee had challenged such levy and charge and such contentions of the assessee has been negatived by the assessing officer while reassessing the income for the assessment year 2002-03 by issue of notice under Section 148 of the Act and tax liability had been determined

THE PR COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX vs. M/S HINDUSTAN AERONAUTICS LTD

In the result, the order of the

Bench: ALOK ARADHE,H.T. NARENDRA PRASAD

DEEMS FIT TO PASS ON THE FACTS AND IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE AND IN THE INTERESTS OF JUSTICE AND EQUITY. THESE ITAs COMING ON FOR HEARING, THIS DAY, ALOK ARADHE J., DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: JUDGMENT I.T.A.No.404/2016 has been filed by the assessee, whereas, I.T.A.No.468/2016 has been filed by the revenue under Section 260A of the Income

HINDUSTAN AERONAUTICS LIMITED vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER

In the result, the order of the

Bench: ALOK ARADHE,H.T. NARENDRA PRASAD

DEEMS FIT TO PASS ON THE FACTS AND IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE AND IN THE INTERESTS OF JUSTICE AND EQUITY. THESE ITAs COMING ON FOR HEARING, THIS DAY, ALOK ARADHE J., DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: JUDGMENT I.T.A.No.404/2016 has been filed by the assessee, whereas, I.T.A.No.468/2016 has been filed by the revenue under Section 260A of the Income