COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-III vs. M/S SUBHASH KABINI POWER CORPORATION LIMITED

Bench: B.V.NAGARATHNA,JAYANT PATEL

revision should not only - 11 - be erroneous, but such erroneous order should result in prejudice to the interest of the revenue. Mere error would not confer jurisdiction to exercise revisional power under Section 263 of the Act. We have gone through the order passed by the revisional authority. It is a very cryptic order. It neither points out an error

THE PR. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX vs. M/S MOODBIDRI CO OPERATIVE SERVICES BANK LTD.,

Bench: KRISHNA S DIXIT,G BASAVARAJA

revision order u/s 263 of the IT Act, 1961 passed by the PCIT, Panaji?” 3. Having heard the learned Sr. Panel Counsel for the Revenue and having perused the Appeal papers, we are of the considered view that the question as to the deductability of interest accruing on monies deposited by the credit cooperative societies as a matter of statutory

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

The appeals stand disposed of, accordingly

Bench: N.KUMAR,B.SREENIVASE GOWDA

disallowances, re-computation of deductions u/s 10A and 80-IB leading to a taxable income of Rs.846,77,24,943/-. 11. Assessee preferred an appeal before the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) [CIT(A)] which was disposed-off by the CIT(A) vide order dated 09.07.2007. Aggrieved by the said order, the Department preferred an appeal before the ITAT

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

The appeals stand disposed of, accordingly

Bench: N.KUMAR,B.SREENIVASE GOWDA

disallowances, re-computation of deductions u/s 10A and 80-IB leading to a taxable income of Rs.846,77,24,943/-. 11. Assessee preferred an appeal before the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) [CIT(A)] which was disposed-off by the CIT(A) vide order dated 09.07.2007. Aggrieved by the said order, the Department preferred an appeal before the ITAT

THE DIRECTOR OF INCOME TAX vs. INDIA HERITAGE FOUNDATION

The appeal is disposed of

Bench: ALOK ARADHE,H.T. NARENDRA PRASAD

disallow the deduction as claimed by the assessee under Section 80IB(10) of the Act and to carry out the assessment 5 afresh in accordance with law after affording an opportunity of hearing to the assessee. 3. Being aggrieved, the assessee filed an appeal before the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Tribunal’, for short). The Tribunal

K R SATYANARAYANA vs. THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX

In the result, the orders passed by the Commissioner of

Bench: ALOK ARADHE,H.T. NARENDRA PRASAD

U/S 263 DATED 2ND JANUARY, 2014 AND CONSEQUENTLY CONFIRM THE ORDER PASSED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER DATED 15.12.2011. THIS ITA COMING ON FOR HEARING, THIS DAY, ALOK ARADHE J., DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: JUDGMENT This appeal under Section 260A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as the Act for short) has been preferred by the assessee. The subject

M/S SUTURES INDIA PVT LTD vs. THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX

In the result the substantial questions of law are

Bench: ALOK ARADHE,R. NATARAJ

disallowances to the tune of Rs.17,96,250/- were made and demand of Rs.9,85,514/- was made on the assessee. Thereafter, the Commissioner of Income Tax invoked the powers under Section 263 of the Act and a show cause notice dated 23.10.2007 was issued by the Commissioner of Income Tax. In the notice, it was stated that the order

THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX vs. SMT.NEENA KRISHNA MENON

In the result, the appeal fails and is hereby

Bench: ALOK ARADHE,H.T. NARENDRA PRASAD

u/s. 54EC without appreciating that the Commissioner of income 3 tax directed the assessing officer to disallowed the deduction to the extent of rupees 50 lakhs holding that the phrase “during any financial year” means during any financial year after the first day of April 2007 and the intention of law was to identify any one of the financial years

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

disallowed as it was not meant for management of construction, but on other expenses, such as advertisement, sales promotion etc. Therefore, the income had to be assessed under the head income from other sources. The Tribunal held that the income had to be assessed as business income and the assessee could not have received a sum of Rs.78.25 lakh without

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

disallowed as it was not meant for management of construction, but on other expenses, such as advertisement, sales promotion etc. Therefore, the income had to be assessed under the head income from other sources. The Tribunal held that the income had to be assessed as business income and the assessee could not have received a sum of Rs.78.25 lakh without

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

disallowed as it was not meant for management of construction, but on other expenses, such as advertisement, sales promotion etc. Therefore, the income had to be assessed under the head income from other sources. The Tribunal held that the income had to be assessed as business income and the assessee could not have received a sum of Rs.78.25 lakh without

THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX vs. M/S AGRICULTURAL PRODUCE MARKET COMMITTEE

Bench: S.SUJATHA,VINEET KOTHARI

263 of the Act was not sustainable on both grounds on which it was passed, namely, [i] to disallow the claim of Depreciation under Section 32 of the Act in the hands of the Assessee, being a Charitable Trust and [ii] requirement to comply with the procedure under Section 11[2] of the Act, if the accumulated income not spent

THE PR.COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIT (A) vs. M/S AGRICULTURAL PRODUCE MARKET COMMITTEE

Bench: S.SUJATHA,VINEET KOTHARI

263 of the Act was not sustainable on both grounds on which it was passed, namely, [i] to disallow the claim of Depreciation under Section 32 of the Act in the hands of the Assessee, being a Charitable Trust and [ii] requirement to comply with the procedure under Section 11[2] of the Act, if the accumulated income not spent

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

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

u/s. 114[e] of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 would be that the AO has looked into all the aspects of the matter made available in the return filed and the documents supplied along with the return. If an opinion is framed by the AO concluding the assessment order under section 143[3] of the Act, reopening the same without

HERBALIFE INTERNATIONAL INDIA PVT LTD vs. THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX

In the result, the assessee's appeal for

Bench: V KAMESWAR RAO,S RACHAIAH

disallowed. 6. Aggrieved by the order of Respondent No.1, the appellant preferred an appeal before the Tribunal challenging the jurisdiction of Respondent No.1 to initiate Revisionary Proceedings under Section 263 of - 8 - ITA No. 433 of 2018 the IT Act. The said appeal being the appeal in ITA No.611/Bang/2014, the Tribunal vide its impugned order dated 02.02.2018, dismissed the appeal

PR. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX vs. M/S CHAMUNDI WINERY AND DISTILLERY

Bench: S.SUJATHA,VINEET KOTHARI

u/s 37 of the Act. Accordingly, I delete the disallowance of Rs.31,75,95,820/- made by the AO.” 18. The second appeal filed by the Revenue before the learned Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) also came to be dismissed on 26/08/2015 in favour of the Respondent Assessee with the following observations:- “It is clear from the above grounds that

THE PR. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (4) vs. M/S CHAMUNDI WINERY AND DISTILLERY

Bench: S.SUJATHA,VINEET KOTHARI

u/s 37 of the Act. Accordingly, I delete the disallowance of Rs.31,75,95,820/- made by the AO.” 18. The second appeal filed by the Revenue before the learned Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) also came to be dismissed on 26/08/2015 in favour of the Respondent Assessee with the following observations:- “It is clear from the above grounds that

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

U/S. 143(3) OF THE ACT, DATED 31.1.2013 FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2009-10 VIDE ANNEUXRE-R & THE CONSEQUENTIAL DEMAND NOTICE ISSUED BY THE R-1, DATED 31.01.2014 FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2009-10 THAT IS VIDE ANNEXURE R-1. THIS PETITION COMING ON FOR DICTATING ORDERS THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING: O R D E R Petitioner