THE PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER vs. M/S OBULAPURAM MINING

Bench: K.SOMASHEKAR,UMESH M ADIGA

208 ITR 465, wherein it was held that mere payment by account payee cheque is not sacrosanct not would it make a non-genuine transaction genuine. From the assessment order, it is seen that the reasons given by the Assessing Officer in paragraph 1.9 for not accepting the reply of the assessee are that there is substantial increase

THE COMMISSIONER vs. M/S CANARA BANK

Appeals are dismissed as the questions of law do not survive for

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

section 14A of the Act by even when the conditions for invoking said provisions as fully satisfied in the case of the assessee? 6. Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal is right in law in setting aside disallowances on account of AFS and HFT category of investments by relying upon the decisions which

DIRECTOR OF INCOME TAX (EXEMPTIONS) vs. M/S. KARNATAKA INDUSTRIAL

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

Bench: ALOK ARADHE,M.I.ARUN

208 (Allahabad); (f) ‘Director of Income Tax, Exemption vs. Ahmedabad Urban Development Authority’, 2017-TIOL-1036-HC-AHM- IT. 11 7. We have considered the submissions made by learned counsel for the parties and have perused the records. Admittedly, the assessee is a statutory body, which is established and incorporated under Section 5 of the KIAD Act. The assessee

THE JOINT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (LTU) vs. BANK OF BARODA

The appeal is dismissed

Bench: S.G.PANDIT,K. V. ARAVIND

SECTION 260-A OF THE INCOME TAX ACT 1961, PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE APPELLATE ORDER DATED 11.03.2022 PASSED BY THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, C BENCH, BANGALORE IN THE RESPONDENT ASSESSEES CASE IN ITA No.1834/BANG/2018 FOR ASSESSMENT YEAR 2014-15 (ANNEXURE A). Digitally signed by VINUTHA B S Location: High Court of Karnataka

THE PR. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX vs. M/S. TE CONNECTIVITY INDIA PVT. LTD.,

Accordingly dispose of the appeal as allowed

Bench: ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE,S RACHAIAH

208 (Delhi)]; ii. Judgment of Punjab and Haryana High Court in the case of Principal Commissioner of Income-tax, Ludhiana -Vs.- Venus Woollen Mills, Ludhiana [(2019) 105 taxmann.com 287 (Punjab & Haryana)]. 4. On the other hand, Sri. K.Suryanarayana, learned Senior Counsel for the respondent-assessee - 9 - ITA No.53 of 2024 would submit that, the respondent is a company engaged

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

The appeal is dismissed

Bench: B.V.NAGARATHNA,JAYANT PATEL

Section 110 of the Act, if an AOP is chargeable to tax at maximum marginal rate then the share of profits in the hands of the members is not chargeable to tax at all. 19. Now against the above contours of taxability of an AOP, we have to see the facts of the case before us. The first