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

In the result, I proceed to pass the following:

Bench: The Hon’Ble Mr.Justice Aravind Kumar

deduction claimed at ` 13,72,23,231/- came to be disallowed. 24. Thus, an amount of ` 48,41,82,071/- out of deduction

M/S WIPRO LIMITED vs. THE ADDITIONAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX,

In the result, the appeal is disposed of in terms of

Bench: ALOK ARADHE,H.T. NARENDRA PRASAD

deduction. The tribunal disallowed the claim for deduction of deferred compensation amount paid from the trust. The tribunal also disallowed

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

deductions were disallowed by the order passed under Section 153C, except one, which had already been disallowed. 8. The assessee

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

deductions were disallowed by the order passed under Section 153C, except one, which had already been disallowed. 8. The assessee

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

deductions were disallowed by the order passed under Section 153C, except one, which had already been disallowed. 8. The assessee

CGI INFORMATION SYSTEMS vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER

Appeals are allowed

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

deduction under Section 10A of the IT Act was disallowed. For A.Y. 1999-2000, 2000-2001 deduction claimed under Section

CGI INFORMATION SYSTEMS vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER

Appeals are allowed

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

deduction under Section 10A of the IT Act was disallowed. For A.Y. 1999-2000, 2000-2001 deduction claimed under Section

CGI INFORMATION SYSTEMS vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF

Appeals are allowed

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

deduction under Section 10A of the IT Act was disallowed. For A.Y. 1999-2000, 2000-2001 deduction claimed under Section

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

The appeal is dismissed accordingly

Bench: SATISH CHANDRA SHARMA,V SRISHANANDA

deduction and hence, disallowed the claim of deduction under Section 10B of the Act. 4. The assessee preferred an appeal

SMT. PUNEETHA @ PUNEETHA B. A. vs. SRI. D. RAVI

The appeal is dismissed accordingly

Bench: R DEVDAS

deduction and hence, disallowed the claim of deduction under Section 10B of the Act. 4. The assessee preferred an appeal

THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX vs. M/S VESESH INFOTECHNICS LIMITEDD

Bench: B.MANOHAR,K.SREEDHAR RAO

disallowing the deduction under Section 80-IA for the assessment year 1999-2000 and also disallowing the deduction under Section

THE DIRECTOR OF INCOME TAX vs. INDIA HERITAGE FOUNDATION

The appeal is disposed of

Bench: ALOK ARADHE,H.T. NARENDRA PRASAD

deduction was allowed by the Assessing Officer vide order dated 18.03.2011. The order of the Assessing Officer was found to be erroneous and 4 prejudicial to the interest of the revenue. Therefore, a show cause notice dated 18.10.2011 under Section 263 of the Act was issued by the Director of Income Tax (Exemption), Bangalore to the assessee proposing to disallow

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

In the result, the appeals are partly allowed

Bench: B.MANOHAR,DILIP B.BHOSALE

disallowed the deduction, under Sections 80HH and 80I of the IT Act, claimed by the respondent-assessee in respect of industrial

M/S SPECTRUM CONSULTANTS INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED vs. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX

In the result this petition is allowed

Bench: The Hon’Ble Mr.Justice Ram Mohan Reddy

disallowing the deduction of Rs.22,91,791/- on the premise that the remittance was delayed and beyond the period prescribed

THE PR. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, vs. THE TOTAGARS CO-OPERATIVE SALE SOCIETY,

The appeal is dismissed

Bench: SREENIVAS HARISH KUMAR,RAGHVENDRA S. CHAUHAN

deduction under Section 10(34) of the Act, the assessee filed its returns. While assessing the income tax returns, the Assessing Officer disallowed

M/S HUBLI ELECTRICITY SUPPLY CO. vs. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER

In the result, the appeals are disposed of as

Bench: JOHN MICHAEL CUNHA,S.SUJATHA

disallowing the claim of deduction under Section 80-IA(4)(iv)(c) of the Act. The authorities treated the items

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

The appeal stands disposed of as

Bench: SATISH CHANDRA SHARMA,R. NATARAJ

disallowance of claim of deduction on account of commission on locker rent received in advance of Rs.112.84 Crore by following