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

The appeals stand disposed of, accordingly

Bench: N.KUMAR,B.SREENIVASE GOWDA

11(FB) under the Wealth Tax Act, it was held credit for income tax paid in other country in relation to income under Section 10-A will not be available under Section 90(1)(a). Under Section 90(1)(b), the Central - 32 - Government may enter into an agreement with the Government of any country outside India for the avoidance

THE PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER vs. M/S OBULAPURAM MINING

Bench: K.SOMASHEKAR,UMESH M ADIGA

11 above, mere participation of one or more persons in the management or control or capital of both the enterprises shall not make them AE unless the criteria specified in sub section (2) are fulfilled and even as per the learned DR of the revenue, clause (j) of sub section (2) of section 92A is attracted but this claim

THE COMMISSIONER OF vs. THE KARNATAKA STATE

Bench: ABHAY SHREENIWAS OKA (CJ),S.G.PANDIT

section 11(1)(a) of the Act. The view taken by the Assessing Officer in disallowing the depreciation which was claimed

THE PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX vs. M/S NIRANI SUGARS LTD.,

In the result, the impugned orders passed by

Bench: ALOK ARADHE,P.G.M.PATIL

disallowance of depreciation. The assessee thereupon approached the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal. The Tribunal, by an order dated 19.02.2015 has allowed the appeal preferred by the assessee and set aside the order of the Commission of Income Tax (Appeals). The Assessing Officer was further directed to allow depreciation as per Appendix I at the higher rates. The Tribunal, inter alia

THE PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX vs. M/S NIRANI SUGARS LTD.,

In the result, the impugned orders passed by

Bench: ALOK ARADHE,P.G.M.PATIL

disallowance of depreciation. The assessee thereupon approached the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal. The Tribunal, by an order dated 19.02.2015 has allowed the appeal preferred by the assessee and set aside the order of the Commission of Income Tax (Appeals). The Assessing Officer was further directed to allow depreciation as per Appendix I at the higher rates. The Tribunal, inter alia

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

Bench: K.SOMASHEKAR,UMESH M ADIGA

11. The assessee was intimated, vide office letter dated 07.01.2013 to obtain copies of relevant material which are in possession of CBI or any other agency and prepare the return of income showing the correct income earned during the financial year 2010-11. Based upon this penalty proceedings under Section 271(1)(c) and 271F were initiated

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

Bench: K.SOMASHEKAR,UMESH M ADIGA

disallowed(Rs) (I) (II) (III) 2009-10 28,76,23,325 9,95,82,217 2010-11 2,29,05,056 1,46,91,363 15. Of these the assessing officer found that to the extent given in column (III) above, the appellant was unable to substantiate the said expenses claimed before the assessing officer. 16.In respect of assessment

COMMISISONER OF INCOME TAX vs. OHIO UNIVERSITY CHRIST COLLEGE

Bench: S.SUJATHA,VINEET KOTHARI

section 11(1)(a).” 19. In so far as question No.3 quoted above is concerned, the finding of the Tribunal are quoted below for ready reference : “7.5.1 We have heard the rival contentions and perused and carefully considered the material on record, including the judicial pronouncements cited. The purposes mentioned by the assessee trust in Form No.10 were

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

The appeals are disposed of

Bench: ALOK ARADHE,RAVI V HOSMANI

disallowing an amount of Rs.192,53,21,426/- on reversal of interest pertaining to earlier years as deduction out of current years income and added back to interest on zero coupon bonds to the tune of RS.1,03,53,095/- along with other additions/disallowance in computation of regular income/book profit. It was held that as per section 36(1)(viia

PR.COMMISSIONER OF vs. M/S SACKHUMVIT TRUST

Bench: S.SUJATHA,VINEET KOTHARI

section 11 on commercial principles after providing for allowance for normal depreciation and deduction thereof from gross income of the Trust. In view of the aforestated Judgment of the Bombay High Court, we answer question No. 1 in the affirmative i.e., in favour of the assessee and against the department. 4. Question No. 2 herein is identical to the question

THE DIRECTOR OF INCOME TAX vs. M/S. KRUPANIDHI EDUCATION

Bench: S.SUJATHA,VINEET KOTHARI

section 11 on commercial principles after providing for allowance for normal depreciation and deduction thereof from gross income of the Trust. In view of the aforestated Judgment of the Bombay High Court, we answer question No. 1 in the affirmative i.e., in favour of the assessee and against the department. 4. Question No. 2 herein is identical to the question

PR. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX vs. M/S. ANJUMAN-E-ISLAM

Bench: S.SUJATHA,VINEET KOTHARI

section 11 on commercial principles after providing for allowance for normal depreciation and deduction thereof from gross income of the Trust. In view of the aforestated Judgment of the Bombay High Court, we answer question No. 1 in the affirmative i.e., in favour of the assessee and against the department. 4. Question No. 2 herein is identical to the question

PR COMMISSIONER OF vs. SHUSHRUTHA EDUCATIONAL

Appeal is dismissed

Bench: S.SUJATHA,VINEET KOTHARI

disallowance of accumulation/set apart of income under Section Date of Order 21-08-2018 I.T.A.No.862/2017 Pr.Commissioner of Income Tax (Exemptions) & Anr. Vs. Shushrutha Educational Trust 4/27 11(1

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

Appeal is allowed

Bench: S.SUJATHA,N.K.PATIL

11 were raised by the assessee for consideration before this Court. Now, the relevant 3 substantial questions of law which arises for consideration in this appeal reads thus: 1. Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Honouable Tribunal was right in law in upholding the penalty levied under Section 271 (1) (c) although the notice

PR.COMMISSIONER OF vs. M/S AGASTYA

Bench: S.SUJATHA,VINEET KOTHARI

section 11 on commercial principles after providing for allowance for normal depreciation and deduction thereof from gross income of the Trust. In view of the aforestated Judgment of the Bombay High Court, we answer question No. 1 in the affirmative i.e., in favour of the assessee and against the department. 4. Question No. 2 herein is identical to the question

PR COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (CENTRAL) vs. M/S CHALASSANI EDUCATION TRUST

Appeal is dismissed

Bench: S.SUJATHA,VINEET KOTHARI

section 11 on commercial principles after providing for allowance for normal depreciation and deduction thereof from gross income of the Trust. In view of the aforestated Judgment of the Bombay High Court, we answer question No. 1 in the affirmative i.e., in favour of Date of Order 21-08-2018 I.T.A.No.852/2017 Pr.Commissioner of Income Tax (Central) & Anr. Vs. M/s.Chalassani

PR COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX vs. M/S MEDICAL RELIEF

Bench: S.SUJATHA,VINEET KOTHARI

section 11 on commercial principles after providing for allowance for normal depreciation and deduction thereof from gross income of the Trust. In view of the aforestated Judgment of the Bombay High Court, we answer question No. 1 in the affirmative i.e., in favour of the assessee and against the department. 4. Question No. 2 herein is identical to the question

PR COMMISSIONER OF vs. M/S YENEPOYA UNIVERSITY

Bench: S.SUJATHA,VINEET KOTHARI

section 11 on commercial principles after providing for allowance for normal depreciation and deduction thereof from gross income of the Trust. In view of the aforestated Judgment of the Bombay High Court, we answer question No. 1 in the affirmative i.e., in favour of the assessee and against the department. 4. Question No. 2 herein is identical to the question