THE BAILHONGAL URBAN COOPERATIVE BANK LTD vs. THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX

Bench: S.ABDUL NAZEER,P.S.DINESH KUMAR

11(a)(2) as well as Section 12 of the KVAT Act, providing for deduction of input tax credit in respect of the capital goods, both would support the case of the present assessee. We do not find any force in the contention of the learned Additional Government Advocate or the premise taken by the authorities below, that merely because

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

The appeals are dismissed

Bench: SATISH CHANDRA SHARMA,SURAJ GOVINDARAJ

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 section 2(s) of the Industrial Dispute Act and employees who have worked for 300 I.T.A. NO.141 OF 2020 c/w I.T.A. NO.151

THE COMMISSIONER OF vs. THE KARNATAKA STATE

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

2) of the Act, for both the assessment years 2008-2009 and 2009-2010. The respondent-assessee made available necessary information before the Assessing Officer. The Assessing Officer, based on the material on record, disallowed the claim of depreciation, as per the provisions of Section 11

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)

11 I. All employers are tarred as tax avoiders with the same brush by the introduction of chapter XII – H and to this extent the provisions therein requires to be struck down. J. The employer is not granted an opportunity to prove that the fringe benefits actually granted to the employees are much lower than the percentages fixed under Section

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

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

Bench: S.SUJATHA,VINEET KOTHARI

11. The learned Tribunal said that since this aspect of the matter was not examined by the Authorities below and it could be treated as a device for transfer of substantial ‘Reserves and Surpluses’ by the Indian Company to the Holding Company at Mauritius BEPS -Base Erosion and Profit Shifting and it could be a colourable device and a dubious

THE DIRECTOR OF INCOME TAX vs. M/S GOKULA EDUCATION FOUNDATION

The appeals are dismissed

Bench: S.SUJATHA,N.K.PATIL

2. Since, common question of law is raised in all these appeals, the matters are heard together and disposed of by this common Judgment. 3. The assessees in all these appeals are the charitable institutions registered under Section 12AA and 10(23)(c) of the Act. The question herein revolves around Section 11 of the Act. For the purpose

THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX vs. M/S KARNATAKA REDDY JANASANGHA

The appeals are dismissed

Bench: S.SUJATHA,N.K.PATIL

2. Since, common question of law is raised in all these appeals, the matters are heard together and disposed of by this common Judgment. 3. The assessees in all these appeals are the charitable institutions registered under Section 12AA and 10(23)(c) of the Act. The question herein revolves around Section 11 of the Act. For the purpose

THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX vs. SRI ADICHUNCHUNGIRI

The appeals are dismissed

Bench: S.SUJATHA,N.K.PATIL

2. Since, common question of law is raised in all these appeals, the matters are heard together and disposed of by this common Judgment. 3. The assessees in all these appeals are the charitable institutions registered under Section 12AA and 10(23)(c) of the Act. The question herein revolves around Section 11 of the Act. For the purpose

THE DIRECTOR OF INCOME TAX vs. INTERNATIONAL INSTITUTE OF INFORMATION TECHNOLOGY

The appeals are dismissed

Bench: S.SUJATHA,N.K.PATIL

2. Since, common question of law is raised in all these appeals, the matters are heard together and disposed of by this common Judgment. 3. The assessees in all these appeals are the charitable institutions registered under Section 12AA and 10(23)(c) of the Act. The question herein revolves around Section 11 of the Act. For the purpose

THE DIRECTOR OF INCOME TAX vs. M/S GOKULA EDUCATION FOUNDATION (MEDICAL)

The appeals are dismissed

Bench: S.SUJATHA,N.K.PATIL

2. Since, common question of law is raised in all these appeals, the matters are heard together and disposed of by this common Judgment. 3. The assessees in all these appeals are the charitable institutions registered under Section 12AA and 10(23)(c) of the Act. The question herein revolves around Section 11 of the Act. For the purpose

THE DIRECTOR OF INCOME TAX EXEMPTIONS vs. AL-AMEEN CHARITABLE FUND TRUST

The appeals are dismissed

Bench: S.SUJATHA,N.K.PATIL

2. Since, common question of law is raised in all these appeals, the matters are heard together and disposed of by this common Judgment. 3. The assessees in all these appeals are the charitable institutions registered under Section 12AA and 10(23)(c) of the Act. The question herein revolves around Section 11 of the Act. For the purpose

COMMISSIONER OF INCOME vs. SRI ADICHUNCHANAGIRI

The appeals are dismissed

Bench: S.SUJATHA,N.K.PATIL

2. Since, common question of law is raised in all these appeals, the matters are heard together and disposed of by this common Judgment. 3. The assessees in all these appeals are the charitable institutions registered under Section 12AA and 10(23)(c) of the Act. The question herein revolves around Section 11 of the Act. For the purpose

PR. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX vs. SRI SRI ADICHUNCHUNAGIRI SHIKSHANA TRUST

In the result, all the appeals are

Bench: JAYANT PATEL,B.SREENIVASE GOWDA

2. Since, common question of law is raised in all these appeals, the matters are heard together and disposed of by this common Judgment. 3. The assessees in all these appeals are the charitable institutions registered under Section 12AA and 10(23)(c) of the Act. The question herein revolves around Section 11 of the Act. For the purpose

COMMISISONER OF INCOME TAX vs. OHIO UNIVERSITY CHRIST COLLEGE

Bench: S.SUJATHA,VINEET KOTHARI

section 11 of the Act and the assessee has not been granted such exemption by CBDT vide a special order ? (2) Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal is right in confirming the order of the CIT directing the assessing authority to allow the claim of assessee for set off of brought forward excess

THE DIRECTOR OF INCOME TAX vs. ENVISIONS

Bench: S.SUJATHA,VINEET SARAN

disallowed the accumulation holding the purpose stated was vague and thus the benefit of Section 11(2) of the Act was denied

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

disallowance made by appellate authority under Section 80JJA of the Act by relying on its earlier order in case of assessee itself when said earlier order has not reached finality and even when the appellate authority rightly rejected said claim as deduction cannot be given in respect of additional wages paid on employment of new workmen during the previous year

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

The appeal stands dismissed

Bench: S.SUJATHA,J.M.KHAZI

2) of the Act, it has been observed that additions made by the assessing officer determining book profit under Section 115JB of the Act cannot be sustained. Any disallowance computed under Section 14A of the Act pertains to computation of income under the normal provisions of the Act and cannot be read into the provisions of Section 115JB