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

In the result, the appeals fail and are hereby

Bench: ALOK ARADHE,H.T. NARENDRA PRASAD

depreciation on purchase of Intellectual Property Rights made by assessing authority under section 40(a)(ia) of the Act as they had failed to deduct TDS on payments made in respect of purchase of intellectual property rights by following its earlier order which has not reached finality and even when the ingredients of 7 section

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

In the result, the appeals fail and are hereby

Bench: ALOK ARADHE,H.T. NARENDRA PRASAD

depreciation on purchase of Intellectual Property Rights made by assessing authority under section 40(a)(ia) of the Act as they had failed to deduct TDS on payments made in respect of purchase of intellectual property rights by following its earlier order which has not reached finality and even when the ingredients of 7 section

THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX vs. M/S AMCO POWER SYSTEMS LTD.,

Bench: B.MANOHAR,VINEET SARAN

7. Being aggrieved by the order of the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), the assessee as well as Revenue, both filed appeals before the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Bangalore, Bench-B. (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Tribunal’ for short). The assessee challenged disallowance of the benefit claimed regarding set-off of brought forward losses, whereas the Revenue filed an appeal

THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX vs. M/S AMCO POWER SYSTEMS LTD.,

Bench: B.MANOHAR,VINEET SARAN

7. Being aggrieved by the order of the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), the assessee as well as Revenue, both filed appeals before the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Bangalore, Bench-B. (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Tribunal’ for short). The assessee challenged disallowance of the benefit claimed regarding set-off of brought forward losses, whereas the Revenue filed an appeal

THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX vs. M/S AMCO POWER SYSTEMS LTD.,

Bench: B.MANOHAR,VINEET SARAN

7. Being aggrieved by the order of the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), the assessee as well as Revenue, both filed appeals before the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Bangalore, Bench-B. (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Tribunal’ for short). The assessee challenged disallowance of the benefit claimed regarding set-off of brought forward losses, whereas the Revenue filed an appeal

THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX vs. M/S AMCO POWER SYSTEMS LTD

Bench: B.MANOHAR,VINEET SARAN

7. Being aggrieved by the order of the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), the assessee as well as Revenue, both filed appeals before the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Bangalore, Bench-B. (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Tribunal’ for short). The assessee challenged disallowance of the benefit claimed regarding set-off of brought forward losses, whereas the Revenue filed an appeal

M/S J K INDUSTRIES LTD vs. THE JOINT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX

In the result, all questions are answered against the

Bench: D.V.SHYLENDRA KUMAR,B.SREENIVASE GOWDA

7 receipts by way of brokerage, commission, interest, rent, charges or any other receipt of a similar nature included in such profits; and (2) the profits of any branch, office, warehouse or any other establishment of the assessee situate outside India; makes it very clear that it has reference to the method of computation of profits and gains of business

THE DIRECTOR OF INCOME TAX vs. INDIA HERITAGE FOUNDATION

The appeal is disposed of

Bench: ALOK ARADHE,H.T. NARENDRA PRASAD

7. Thus, from close scrutiny of Section 263 it is evident that twin conditions are required to be satisfied for exercise of revisional jurisdiction under Section 263 of the Act firstly, the order of the Assessing Officer is erroneous and secondly, that it is prejudicial to the interest of the revenue on account of error in the order of assessment

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

The appeals are dismissed

Bench: ARAVIND KUMAR,N.KUMAR

7. The assessee M/s.Veerabhadrappa Sangappa & Co., is a partnership firm carrying on the business of Mining & Processing of iron ore and sale and export. For the assessment year 2003-04, they filed a return declaring an income of Rs.1,17,53,980/-. The return filed was processed and the assessment was completed under Section

DELL INDIA PVT LTD vs. THE JOINT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX

Bench: The Hon’Ble Mr.Justice Aravind Kumar

7. He would also contend that in anticipation of the probable contention that revenue may raise with regard to maintainability of writ petition namely petitioner ought to have approached the appellate authority and as such petitioner cannot question the issuance of notice issued under section 148 in writ jurisdiction and to preempt such contention being raised or urged

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

Bench: S.SUJATHA,VINEET KOTHARI

94,300/- on 29/03/1962 and thus the Assessee incurred a loss of `23,100/- for the said year, the learned Tribunal held that though the said loss in sale and purchase of the shares could not be termed as ‘speculative transactions’ and the lower Authorities were not justified in treating the said loss as ‘speculative loss’ but however, the Tribunal

M/S TRIMM EXPORTS PRIVATE LIMITED vs. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX

In the result, the order dated 08

Bench: ALOK ARADHE,HEMANT CHANDANGOUDAR

94,000/-. The case of the appellant was selected for scrutiny and the Assessing Officer issued a notice under Section 143(2) of the Act. The assessee filed a reply to the aforesaid notice on 4 07.10.2010. The Assessing Officer by an order dated 30.08.2011 determined total income of the assessee at Rs.1,27,64,292/- after setting off unabsorbed

THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX vs. M/S WIPRO LTD

The appeals stand disposed of, accordingly

Bench: N.KUMAR,B.SREENIVASE GOWDA

Section 145A of the Income- tax Act which was inserted with effect from assessment year 1999-2000. The said provision states that the valuation of stock should include the amount of any tax duty, cess or fee - 94 - actually paid or incurred to bring the goods to its present location and condition. The Department has followed a consistent stand

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

The appeals stand disposed of, accordingly

Bench: N.KUMAR,B.SREENIVASE GOWDA

Section 145A of the Income- tax Act which was inserted with effect from assessment year 1999-2000. The said provision states that the valuation of stock should include the amount of any tax duty, cess or fee - 94 - actually paid or incurred to bring the goods to its present location and condition. The Department has followed a consistent stand

M/S INDUS TOWERS LTD vs. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF COMMERCIAL TAXES

In the result, we pass the following order:

Bench: RAVI MALIMATH,N.KUMAR

Section 4(1)(b) of th Act Th rave not leried any tax on the scrric ransaction a sak it o d In \ t e’ fed a i h ;ai’fer )[ riqN In use o d ‘h t [ it vi i1 xi thc sse s e, niss aac ha enled th oft NirlichEir in i ea I o he uecn

SRI S S JYOTHI PRAKASH vs. THE ADDL COMMISSIONER

The appeal is allowed accordingly

Bench: JAYANT PATEL,B.SREENIVASE GOWDA

Section 69 of the Act, the Tribunal found that the property in question was valued by the Departmental valuer, approved valuer of the assessee and also District Registrar/Appellate Authority for the stamp duty purpose and hence the Tribunal decided the value of the property at the value which was determined by the District Registrar/Appellate Authority for stamp duty purpose

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

94,36,842/- was declared which included the income from other sources to the extent of Rs.14,34,08,185/-. The assessee later on filed a revised return on 30.03.2011. The assessee had international transactions with its associate enterprises. Therefore, the Assessing Officer referred the case of the assessee to the Transfer Pricing Officer to determine the Arms Length price

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