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

The appeals stand disposed of, accordingly

Bench: N.KUMAR,B.SREENIVASE GOWDA

2) was issued on 09.11.2001. The assessee moved a rectification application u/s 154 for having wrongly claimed deduction u/s 80HHC at 100% instead of 80%. Rectification order was passed on - 18 - 19.02.2002 and the income was determined at Rs.114,72,43,817/- u/s 143(1) read with Section 154. Notice u/s 142(1) was issued on 21.12.2001 with a questionnaire

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

The appeals stand disposed of, accordingly

Bench: N.KUMAR,B.SREENIVASE GOWDA

2) was issued on 09.11.2001. The assessee moved a rectification application u/s 154 for having wrongly claimed deduction u/s 80HHC at 100% instead of 80%. Rectification order was passed on - 18 - 19.02.2002 and the income was determined at Rs.114,72,43,817/- u/s 143(1) read with Section 154. Notice u/s 142(1) was issued on 21.12.2001 with a questionnaire

PR. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX vs. SMT. G. LAKSHMI ARUNA

Bench: K.SOMASHEKAR,UMESH M ADIGA

1(3), Bangalore dated 31.03.2013, further an appeal was preferred before the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) – VI wherein the appellate order and ground of decision was passed. The assessments under Section 153C read with Section 144 of the IT Act for assessment years 2005-06 to 2010-11 and under Section 153D read with Section 144 for the assessment

PR. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX vs. SHRI. GALI JANARDHANA REDDY

Bench: K.SOMASHEKAR,UMESH M ADIGA

1(3), Bangalore dated 31.03.2013 an appeal was preferred before the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) – VI wherein the appellate order and ground of decision was passed. The assessments under Section 153C read with Section 144 of the IT Act for assessment years 2005-06 to 2010-11 and under Section 154D read with Section 144 for the assessment year

THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX vs. TEXAS INSTRUMENTS INDIA PVT LTD

The appeals are dismissed

Bench: SATISH CHANDRA SHARMA,SURAJ GOVINDARAJ

1. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal is right in law in setting aside the disallowance of Rs.7,57,22,069 made under section 80JJAA of the Act by holding that the employees in software industry are covered by definition of ‘Workman’ in Explanation (iii) to section 80JJAA of the Act read with

M/S T T K PRESTIGE LTD vs. THE UNION OF INDIA REPTD BY ITS FINANCE SECRETARY

Bench: The Hon’Ble Mr.Justice P.B. Bajanthri W.P. No.26037/2005 C/W W.P.No.4464/2007 & W.P.No.27087/2005(It)

disallowed under section 37 of the Act is outside the purview of fringe benefit tax as explained by CBDT Circular dated 29/8/2005 in response to Question No.35. Hence the contention of the assessee that levy of fringe benefit tax is double taxation is incorrect. 6. It is submitted that the petitioner has contended that the benefits/expenses can be taxed

PR COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-5 vs. M/S PAGE INDUSTRIES LTD

In the result, the appeal fails and is hereby dismissed

Bench: ALOK ARADHE,R. NATARAJ

2)(iii) to the extent of Rs.20,51,175/- and disallowance of Rs.74,08,964/- under the provisions of Section 80JJAA of the Act were proposed. The 5 assessee thereupon filed objections before the Dispute Resolution Panel contesting all the additions. The Dispute Resolution Panel, however rejected the objections preferred by the assessee. The assessee thereupon filed an appeal before

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

Bench: S.SUJATHA,VINEET KOTHARI

disallowed the depreciation and the High Court affirmed the decision of the Tribunal. On appeal to the Supreme Court: Held, that under Section 254 (1) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, the Appellate Tribunal had no power to take back the benefit conferred by the assessing Officer or enhance the assessment. Since the Assessing Officer had granted depreciation in respect

PR. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-2 vs. M/S.J.J.GLASTRONICS PVT LTD

The appeal stands dismissed

Bench: S.SUJATHA,J.M.KHAZI

disallowed under section 14A cannot be added to the book profits computed under Section 115JB. 10. Similarly, in the case of Commissioner of Income Tax vs. Gokaldas Images (P) Ltd., reported in - 14 - (2020) 429 ITR 526 (Kar.), having regard to Clause (f) of Explanation 1 to Section 115JB(2

COFFEEDAY GLOBAL LTD. vs. ADDITIONAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX

In the result, the orders dated 21

Bench: ALOK ARADHE,ASHOK S.KINAGI

disallowance under Section 14A read with Rule8D(2)(ii) of the Rules and therefore, same conclusion ought to have been drawn to Section 36(1

COFFEEDAY GLOBAL LTD. vs. ADDITIONAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX

In the result, the orders dated 21

Bench: ALOK ARADHE,ASHOK S.KINAGI

disallowance under Section 14A read with Rule8D(2)(ii) of the Rules and therefore, same conclusion ought to have been drawn to Section 36(1

PR. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX vs. M/S AMALGAMATED BEAN COFFEE TRADING CO LTD

In the result, the orders dated 21

Bench: ALOK ARADHE,ASHOK S.KINAGI

disallowance under Section 14A read with Rule8D(2)(ii) of the Rules and therefore, same conclusion ought to have been drawn to Section 36(1

M/S SAFINA HOTELS PRIVATE LIMITED vs. THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX

Appeal is allowed

Bench: S.SUJATHA,N.K.PATIL

2. Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Honourable Tribunal was right in law in upholding the penalty levied under section 271 (1) (c) when the Learned Second Respondent did not the record the satisfaction for levy of penalty as per the mandate of section 271(1) read with section

COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-III vs. M/S SYNDICATE BANK

The appeals are disposed of

Bench: ALOK ARADHE,RAVI V HOSMANI

2) / 142(1) of the Act were issued to the Assessee an order under Section 143(3) of the Act was passed on 28.02.2005 disallowing

PR.COMMISSIONER OF INCOMETAX-2 vs. M/S.EYGBS (INDIA) PVT LTD

Bench: CHIEF JUSTICE,C M JOSHI

1. For the reasons stated in the applications ― I.A.No.1/2025, the same are allowed. The delay of 46 days in filing the above captioned appeals, is condoned. 2. The Revenue have filed the present appeals under Section 260A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 [the Act], impugning a common order dated 08.11.2024 [impugned order], passed by the learned Income

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

1. THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, C.R. BUILDING, QUEENS ROAD, BANGALORE. 2. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CIRCLE - 11(4), RASHTROTHANA BHAVAN, NRUPATHUNGA ROAD, BANGALORE. ... APPELLANTS (BY SRI: K.V. ARAVIND, ADVOCATE) AND: M/S. IBC KNOWLEDGE PARK PVT. LTD., NO. 150, DIAMOND DISTRICT, TOWER B, PENT HOUSE, AIRPORT ROAD, BANGALORE – 560 038. ... RESPONDENT (BY SRI: K.P. KUMAR, SENIOR COUNSEL

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

1. THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, C.R. BUILDING, QUEENS ROAD, BANGALORE. 2. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CIRCLE - 11(4), RASHTROTHANA BHAVAN, NRUPATHUNGA ROAD, BANGALORE. ... APPELLANTS (BY SRI: K.V. ARAVIND, ADVOCATE) AND: M/S. IBC KNOWLEDGE PARK PVT. LTD., NO. 150, DIAMOND DISTRICT, TOWER B, PENT HOUSE, AIRPORT ROAD, BANGALORE – 560 038. ... RESPONDENT (BY SRI: K.P. KUMAR, SENIOR COUNSEL

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

1. THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, C.R. BUILDING, QUEENS ROAD, BANGALORE. 2. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CIRCLE - 11(4), RASHTROTHANA BHAVAN, NRUPATHUNGA ROAD, BANGALORE. ... APPELLANTS (BY SRI: K.V. ARAVIND, ADVOCATE) AND: M/S. IBC KNOWLEDGE PARK PVT. LTD., NO. 150, DIAMOND DISTRICT, TOWER B, PENT HOUSE, AIRPORT ROAD, BANGALORE – 560 038. ... RESPONDENT (BY SRI: K.P. KUMAR, SENIOR COUNSEL