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

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 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 COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX vs. M/S BPL SANYO FINANCE LTD

In the result, the appeal filed by the revenue is

Bench: The Tribunal Was Arising From The Order Dated 4Th June 2004 Passed By The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) Bangalore (For Short “The

11. Simultaneously penalty proceedings under Section 271 (1) (c) of the Act were also initiated against the assessee. The AO after having considered the entire materials placed on record and the admissions given by the assessee in respect of the transaction and so also on 12 the basis of oral evidence on record levied penalty of Rs.43

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 INCOME TAX (EXEMPTION) vs. CMR JNANADHARA TRUST

The appeals stand dismissed

Bench: S.G.PANDIT,K. V. ARAVIND

disallowance has been sought to be made by invoking Section 13(1)(c) primarily on the ground that the concerns have earned higher profits, as reflected in their statements of profit and loss. 9. It is also contended that the concerns have paid higher remuneration to their Directors. However, there is no comparative material placed on record to demonstrate that

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

c) and 271F were initiated. 10.It is observed in paragraph 5.4 of the order dated 31.03.2013 that in the previous years, the assessee has opted to club the income of minor children with her income, as the TDS 11 deducted from the Banks are in the name of assessee. Therefore, the income of minor children are clubbed with the income

COMMISSIONER OF INCOME vs. SHRI MUNINAGA REDDY

Bench: ARAVIND KUMAR,JAYANT PATEL

section 271(1)(c) of the Act, the amount so added or disallowed in computing the assessee’s total income is deemed to represent the concealed income. It is for the assessee to furnish material to establish that the assessee has not concealed income or has not furnished inaccurate particulars of income. In the absence of any such evidence

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

SHRI. MUNINAGA REDDY vs. THE ASST. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME -TAX CIRCLE 6 (1)

Appeals are allowed to the aforesaid extent

Bench: ARAVIND KUMAR,JAYANT PATEL

disallowed in computing the assessee’s total income is deemed to represent the concealed income. It is for the assessee to furnish material to establish that the assessee has not concealed income or has not furnished inaccurate particulars of income. In the absence of any such evidence, the presumption of concealment of income or furnishing of inaccurate particulars of income

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

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

C' BENCH: BANGALORE IN APPEAL PROCEEDINGS NO.ITA NO. 2119/BANG/2016 FOR ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2012-13, VIDE ANNEXURE-A AS SOUGHT FOR IN THIS APPEAL; AND TO GRANT SUCH OTHER RELIEF AS DEEMED FIT, IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE. THIS I.T.A. COMING ON FOR HEARING ON INTEROLOCUTORY APPLICATION, THIS DAY Dr. VINEET KOTHARI J. DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:- JUDGMENT Mr.S.Parthasarathi & Smt.Sheetal Borkar, Advs

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

The appeal stands dismissed

Bench: S.SUJATHA,J.M.KHAZI

c) amend any intimation under sub-section (1) of section 200A; (d) amend any intimation under sub-section (1) of section 206CB; - 8 - (1A) Where any matter has been considered and decided in any proceeding by way of appeal or revision relating to an order referred to in sub- section (1), the authority passing such order may, notwithstanding anything contained

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

Bench: S.SUJATHA,VINEET KOTHARI

C' BENCH: BANGALORE IN APPEAL PROCEEDINGS NO. ITA NO. 1701/BANG/2017 FOR ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2010-2011, VIDE ANNEXURE-A, AS SOUGHT FOR IN THIS APPEAL; AND TO GRANT SUCH OTHER RELIEF AS DEEMED FIT, IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE. THIS I.T.A. COMING ON FOR HEARING ON INTEROLOCUTORY APPLICATION, THIS DAY Dr. VINEET KOTHARI J. DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:- JUDGMENT Mr.Sanmathi

THE PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER vs. M/S OBULAPURAM MINING

Bench: K.SOMASHEKAR,UMESH M ADIGA

C’ Bench, Bengaluru (for short “ITAT”) in ITA No.653 (Bang) 2015, dated 29.07.2016; to confirm the order passed by the Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle 1(3), Bengaluru (for short “DCIT”) and to pass such other suitable order as deems fit in this appeal. 2.Heard the learned standing counsel Shri Y.V. Raviraj for appellants/revenue and the learned counsel

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

Bench: N.KUMAR,RATHNAKALA

disallowed in computing the total income or loss of an assessee in any order of assessment or reassessment and the said order contains a direction for initiation of penalty proceedings under clause (c) of sub-Section (1), such an order of 11