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

143(3) OF I.T.ACT., FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2014-2015, VIDE ANNEXURE-A. IN I.T.A.No.869/2018: BETWEEN : M/s UDAYA SOUHARDA CREDIT CO-OP. SOCIETY LTD., REP BY ITS PRESIDENT SRI B.S.GUNDU RAO # 372, 2ND FLOOR, 9TH MAIN, HANUMANTHANAGAR BENGALURU-560 019 PAN: AAAAU0472H ...APPELLANT (BY SRI A.SHANKAR, SENIOR ADV. FOR SRI M.LAVA, ADV.) -6- AND : THE INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD

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

143(3) OF I.T.ACT., FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2014-2015, VIDE ANNEXURE-A. IN I.T.A.No.869/2018: BETWEEN : M/s UDAYA SOUHARDA CREDIT CO-OP. SOCIETY LTD., REP BY ITS PRESIDENT SRI B.S.GUNDU RAO # 372, 2ND FLOOR, 9TH MAIN, HANUMANTHANAGAR BENGALURU-560 019 PAN: AAAAU0472H ...APPELLANT (BY SRI A.SHANKAR, SENIOR ADV. FOR SRI M.LAVA, ADV.) -6- AND : THE INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD

M/S SRI VARUN SOUHARDA CREDIT CO OP LTD vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER

In the result, Writ appeals stand dismissed

Bench: S.SUJATHA,S RACHAIAH

143(3) OF I.T.ACT., FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2014-2015, VIDE ANNEXURE-A. IN I.T.A.No.869/2018: BETWEEN : M/s UDAYA SOUHARDA CREDIT CO-OP. SOCIETY LTD., REP BY ITS PRESIDENT SRI B.S.GUNDU RAO # 372, 2ND FLOOR, 9TH MAIN, HANUMANTHANAGAR BENGALURU-560 019 PAN: AAAAU0472H ...APPELLANT (BY SRI A.SHANKAR, SENIOR ADV. FOR SRI M.LAVA, ADV.) -6- AND : THE INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD

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

143(3) OF I.T.ACT., FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2014-2015, VIDE ANNEXURE-A. IN I.T.A.No.869/2018: BETWEEN : M/s UDAYA SOUHARDA CREDIT CO-OP. SOCIETY LTD., REP BY ITS PRESIDENT SRI B.S.GUNDU RAO # 372, 2ND FLOOR, 9TH MAIN, HANUMANTHANAGAR BENGALURU-560 019 PAN: AAAAU0472H ...APPELLANT (BY SRI A.SHANKAR, SENIOR ADV. FOR SRI M.LAVA, ADV.) -6- AND : THE INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD

THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX vs. M/S.GE INDIA TECHNOLOGY

Bench: SATISH CHANDRA SHARMA,V SRISHANANDA

143(3), denying the deduction of Rs.1,80,27,563/- claimed by the assessee under Section 10B of the IT Act. 6 5. The assessee being aggrieved by the assessment order dated 21.12.2011 preferred an appeal against the assessment order before the Commissioner of Income-tax Appeals-I and the appellate authority has dismissed the appeal by order dated

M/S. MARMON FOOD AND BEVERAGE TECHNOLOGIES INDIA vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER

Bench: SATISH CHANDRA SHARMA,V SRISHANANDA

143(3), denying the deduction of Rs.1,80,27,563/- claimed by the assessee under Section 10B of the IT Act. 6 5. The assessee being aggrieved by the assessment order dated 21.12.2011 preferred an appeal against the assessment order before the Commissioner of Income-tax Appeals-I and the appellate authority has dismissed the appeal by order dated

M/S. MARMON FOOD AND BEVERAGE TECHNOLOGIES INDIA vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER

Bench: SATISH CHANDRA SHARMA,V SRISHANANDA

143(3), denying the deduction of Rs.1,80,27,563/- claimed by the assessee under Section 10B of the IT Act. 6 5. The assessee being aggrieved by the assessment order dated 21.12.2011 preferred an appeal against the assessment order before the Commissioner of Income-tax Appeals-I and the appellate authority has dismissed the appeal by order dated

THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX vs. M/S.GE INDIA TECHNOLOGY

Bench: SATISH CHANDRA SHARMA,V SRISHANANDA

143(3), denying the deduction of Rs.1,80,27,563/- claimed by the assessee under Section 10B of the IT Act. 6 5. The assessee being aggrieved by the assessment order dated 21.12.2011 preferred an appeal against the assessment order before the Commissioner of Income-tax Appeals-I and the appellate authority has dismissed the appeal by order dated

M/S. MARMON FOOD AND BEVERAGE TECHNOLOGIES INDIA vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER

Bench: SATISH CHANDRA SHARMA,V SRISHANANDA

143(3), denying the deduction of Rs.1,80,27,563/- claimed by the assessee under Section 10B of the IT Act. 6 5. The assessee being aggrieved by the assessment order dated 21.12.2011 preferred an appeal against the assessment order before the Commissioner of Income-tax Appeals-I and the appellate authority has dismissed the appeal by order dated

M/S. MARMON FOOD AND BEVERAGE TECHNOLOGIES INDIA vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER

Bench: SATISH CHANDRA SHARMA,V SRISHANANDA

143(3), denying the deduction of Rs.1,80,27,563/- claimed by the assessee under Section 10B of the IT Act. 6 5. The assessee being aggrieved by the assessment order dated 21.12.2011 preferred an appeal against the assessment order before the Commissioner of Income-tax Appeals-I and the appellate authority has dismissed the appeal by order dated

M/S. MARMON FOOD AND BEVERAGE TECHNOLOGIES INDIA vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER

Bench: SATISH CHANDRA SHARMA,V SRISHANANDA

143(3), denying the deduction of Rs.1,80,27,563/- claimed by the assessee under Section 10B of the IT Act. 6 5. The assessee being aggrieved by the assessment order dated 21.12.2011 preferred an appeal against the assessment order before the Commissioner of Income-tax Appeals-I and the appellate authority has dismissed the appeal by order dated

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

143(3) had been passed on 27/12/2006 and in that assessment order, all deductions were disallowed by the order passed under Section 153C, except one, which had already been disallowed. 8. The assessee filed an appeal against the assessment order dated 31/12/2012 before the Appellate Commissioner. 9. In the appeal preferred before the Appellate Commissioner by the assessee by common

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

143(3) had been passed on 27/12/2006 and in that assessment order, all deductions were disallowed by the order passed under Section 153C, except one, which had already been disallowed. 8. The assessee filed an appeal against the assessment order dated 31/12/2012 before the Appellate Commissioner. 9. In the appeal preferred before the Appellate Commissioner by the assessee by common

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

143(3) had been passed on 27/12/2006 and in that assessment order, all deductions were disallowed by the order passed under Section 153C, except one, which had already been disallowed. 8. The assessee filed an appeal against the assessment order dated 31/12/2012 before the Appellate Commissioner. 9. In the appeal preferred before the Appellate Commissioner by the assessee by common

THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX vs. SRI N LEELA KUMAR

Bench: N.KUMAR,RATHNAKALA

143 or section 144 or section 147 have been concluded prior to the date of commencement of the search or the date of requisition, on the basis of such assessments; - 9 - (b) where returns of income have been filed under section 139 or in response to a notice issued under sub-section (1) of section 142 or section

M/S T T K PRESTIGE LTD vs. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX

Bench: The Hon’Ble Mrs.Justice S.Sujatha

depreciation allowance or any other allowance, as the case may be, for the assessment year concerned (hereafter in this section and in sections 148 to 153 referred to as the relevant assessment year)." On going through the changes, quoted above, made to Section 147 of the Act, we find that, prior to Direct Tax Laws (Amendment) Act, 1987, re-opening

PR COMMISSIONER OF vs. M/S GMR HYDERABAD

Appeals stand disposed of accordingly

Bench: S.SUJATHA,RAVI V HOSMANI

depreciation on capitalization of expenditure incurred during the assessment year 2007-08 and 2008-09? 2. Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Tribunal is right in law in restoring the file to assessing authority as for disallowance made by assessing authority in respect of Section 14A read with Rule

THE PR. COMMISIONER INCOME TAX vs. M/S. GMR INFRASTRUCTURE LTD

Appeals stand disposed of accordingly

Bench: S.SUJATHA,RAVI V HOSMANI

depreciation on capitalization of expenditure incurred during the assessment year 2007-08 and 2008-09? 2. Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Tribunal is right in law in restoring the file to assessing authority as for disallowance made by assessing authority in respect of Section 14A read with Rule