MANGALORE REFINERY AND PETROCHEMICALS LTD vs. PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX

In the result, I pass the following:-

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

Depreciation 13,09,37,839 Disallowance under section 14A of the IT Act 9,03,79,391 7 8. Being aggrieved by the aforesaid assessment orders, the Petitioner filed appeals before the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), which were partly allowed in favour of the petitioner vide orders dated 08.03.2013 and 24.09.2014 respectively, for the aforesaid assessment years

MANGALORE REFINERY AND PETROCHEMICALS LTD vs. PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX

In the result, I pass the following:-

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

Depreciation 13,09,37,839 Disallowance under section 14A of the IT Act 9,03,79,391 7 8. Being aggrieved by the aforesaid assessment orders, the Petitioner filed appeals before the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), which were partly allowed in favour of the petitioner vide orders dated 08.03.2013 and 24.09.2014 respectively, for the aforesaid assessment years

THE PR COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-7, vs. M/S TALLY SOLUTIONS PVT. LTD.

Bench: SATISH CHANDRA SHARMA,R. NATARAJ

92,70,723/- and claimed depreciation of a sum of Rs.4,95,34,297/- on the intellectual property rights. The return of income was taken up for assessment and the Assessing Officer passed an assessment order dated 3 29.11.2016 and re-computed the total income of the assessee inter alia by disallowing the claim for depreciation in respect

THE SRI KANNIKAPARAMESWARI CO OP BANK LIMITED vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER

The appeal stands allowed

Bench: S.SUJATHA,HANCHATE SANJEEVKUMAR

92 taxmann.com 361(SC) submitted that to ascertain whether reopening is on change in opinion, it is required to verify whether the - 8 - assessment earlier made has either expressly or by necessary implication expressed an opinion on a matter which is the basis of the alleged escapement of income that was taxable. If no such analysis is made

PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX - 6 vs. M/S. SAMSUNG R & D INSTITUTE BANGALORE PVT LTD

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

Bench: ALOK ARADHE,H.T. NARENDRA PRASAD

Section 92-CA of the Act by making an adjustment in respect of software development services. The Assessing Officer thereafter passed an order of assessment incorporating the transfer pricing adjustment. The assessee thereupon filed an appeal before the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) in which selection of Infosys Ltd. as comparable was challenged. The Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals

M/S DELHI INTERNATIONAL AIRPORT LTD vs. THE PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX

Bench: S.SUJATHA,S VISHWAJITH SHETTY

depreciation under section 32 on repairs and maintenance for AY 2008-09, AY 2009-10 and AY 2010-11?" - 11 - 5. Learned counsel appearing for the appellant – assessee submitted that the Tribunal erred in setting aside and restoring the issue of disallowance of collection charges under Section 40(a)(ia) of the Act pertaining to Passenger Service Fee (Security Component

M/S DELHI INTERNATIONAL vs. THE PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER

Bench: S.SUJATHA,S VISHWAJITH SHETTY

depreciation under section 32 on repairs and maintenance for AY 2008-09, AY 2009-10 and AY 2010-11?" - 11 - 5. Learned counsel appearing for the appellant – assessee submitted that the Tribunal erred in setting aside and restoring the issue of disallowance of collection charges under Section 40(a)(ia) of the Act pertaining to Passenger Service Fee (Security Component

THE PR. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, vs. M/S. DELHI INTERNATIONAL AIRPORT PVT. LTD.,

Bench: S.SUJATHA,S VISHWAJITH SHETTY

depreciation under section 32 on repairs and maintenance for AY 2008-09, AY 2009-10 and AY 2010-11?" - 11 - 5. Learned counsel appearing for the appellant – assessee submitted that the Tribunal erred in setting aside and restoring the issue of disallowance of collection charges under Section 40(a)(ia) of the Act pertaining to Passenger Service Fee (Security Component

M/S DELHI INTERNATIONAL AIRPORT LTD vs. THE PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX

Bench: S.SUJATHA,S VISHWAJITH SHETTY

depreciation under section 32 on repairs and maintenance for AY 2008-09, AY 2009-10 and AY 2010-11?" - 11 - 5. Learned counsel appearing for the appellant – assessee submitted that the Tribunal erred in setting aside and restoring the issue of disallowance of collection charges under Section 40(a)(ia) of the Act pertaining to Passenger Service Fee (Security Component

THE PR. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, vs. M/S. DELHI INTERNATIONAL AIRPORT PVT. LTD.

Bench: S.SUJATHA,S VISHWAJITH SHETTY

depreciation under section 32 on repairs and maintenance for AY 2008-09, AY 2009-10 and AY 2010-11?" - 11 - 5. Learned counsel appearing for the appellant – assessee submitted that the Tribunal erred in setting aside and restoring the issue of disallowance of collection charges under Section 40(a)(ia) of the Act pertaining to Passenger Service Fee (Security Component

THE PR. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, vs. M/S. DELHI INTERNATIONAL AIRPORT PVT. LTD.,

Bench: S.SUJATHA,S VISHWAJITH SHETTY

depreciation under section 32 on repairs and maintenance for AY 2008-09, AY 2009-10 and AY 2010-11?" - 11 - 5. Learned counsel appearing for the appellant – assessee submitted that the Tribunal erred in setting aside and restoring the issue of disallowance of collection charges under Section 40(a)(ia) of the Act pertaining to Passenger Service Fee (Security Component

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

Bench: S.SUJATHA,VINEET KOTHARI

92,434/- as Dividend under Section 115-O of the Act, [2,933 shares ( `2,85,108 -10 ) = `83,62,21,764/-]. 8. Since the said Assessment Order was passed in pursuance of the directions of the Dispute Resolution Panel (DRP) under Section 144 C (5) of the Income Tax Act, 1961, the Assessee Company preferred an appeal before

THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX vs. SYNDICATE BANK

Bench: ALOK ARADHE,RAVI V HOSMANI

depreciation on securities (iv) floating rate notes of London branch (v) DICGC loans (vi) suits filed accounts (vii) miscellaneous provision cannot be added back in accordance with Explanation of Section 115JA of the Act in the light of the judgment of the Apex court in H.C.L. Comnet when there is diminution in the value of assets as contended

THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX vs. M/S CANARA BANK

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

Bench: ALOK ARADHE,H.T. NARENDRA PRASAD

92,45,20,300/- and Rs.2,96,99,47,660/- respectively was declared. In the assessments made under Section 143(3) of the Act the Assessing Officer disallowed the depreciation

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

Section 263 of the Act as under: “The assessee company is engaged in the manufacturing and sale of transmission line hardware and accessories, surge arrestors etc. The assessee had filed return of income on 30.11.2015 declaring total income of Rs.7,35,02,720/-. The scrutiny assessment proceedings u/s 143(3) of the - 22 - ITA No.53

COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX vs. M/S.WINTAC LTD.,

The appeal is allowed in part

Bench: B.MANOHAR,DILIP B.BHOSALE

92,141/-. The finding of the First Appellate Authority is challenged both by the assessee and the Revenue before the Appellate Tribunal. The Tribunal accepted the contention of the assessee and rejected the contention of Revenue. The order passed by the Appellate Tribunal is contrary to law. The Tribunal failed to take note of the fact that the assessee- company

THE DIRECTOR OF INCOME TAX vs. M/S KODAVA SAMAJA

The appeal is dismissed

Bench: B.VEERAPPA,N.KUMAR

Section 12AA(3) of the Act by the authorities. In response to the said notice, the assessee filed its written submission on 2.12.2011 and contested the matter. The authorities took note of the fact that the accounts for the year ended 31.3.2009 shows receipts by way of rentals and other income to an extent of Rs.75,92,080/- and excess

THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX GULBARGA vs. M/S MANJUNATHA COTTON AND GINNING FACTORY

The appeals are dismissed

Bench: ARAVIND KUMAR,N.KUMAR

92,448/- is concerned, the assessee accepted the said addition as he was not able to reconcile itself. Nothing is found as to prove that the assessee has consciously made the concealment or furnished inadequate particulars of his income. Thus, in the facts and circumstances of the case, no penalty is leviable on such agreed addition