THE PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER vs. M/S OBULAPURAM MINING

Bench: K.SOMASHEKAR,UMESH M ADIGA

Section 144C(13) of the Income Tax Act on 31.12.2013, determining total income at Rs.10,86,34,35,052/- by making various additions, which reads as under: Additional / Issues Rs. Transfer pricing adjustments 112,20,92,081/- Claim of bogus transportation expenses of iron ore 40% attributable towards illegal mining. 86,43,47,335/- Disallowance

M/S BEST TRADING & AGENCIES LTD vs. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX

In the result, the orders passed by the

Bench: ALOK ARADHE,H.T. NARENDRA PRASAD

112 of the Act and there is no provision of the Act which prevents the assessee from claiming the indexed cost of acquisition on sale of asset in a case where the assessee is subjected to provisions of Section 115JB of the Act. It is argued that in view of Section 115JB(5) of the Act, the indexed cost

M/S BEST TRADING & AGENCIES LTD vs. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX

In the result, the orders passed by the

Bench: ALOK ARADHE,H.T. NARENDRA PRASAD

112 of the Act and there is no provision of the Act which prevents the assessee from claiming the indexed cost of acquisition on sale of asset in a case where the assessee is subjected to provisions of Section 115JB of the Act. It is argued that in view of Section 115JB(5) of the Act, the indexed cost

THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX vs. M/S. CANARA BANK

Bench: P.S.DINESH KUMAR,UMESH M ADIGA

112 JC ROAD, BENGALURU - 560 002. ....RESPONDENT (BY SRI P SURYANARAYANA, SR. COUNSEL FOR SMT. TANMAYEE RAJKUMAR, ADVOCATE) THIS INCOME TAX APPEAL FILED UNDER SECTION 260-A OF INCOME TAX ACT 1961, ARISING OUT OF ORDER DATED 15.09.2017 PASSED IN ITA No.931/BANG/2016, FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2011- 2012 PRAYING TO FORMULATE THE SUBSTANTIAL QUESTIONS OF LAW STATED ABOVE AND ALLOW

THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX vs. M/S CANARA BANK

Bench: P.S.DINESH KUMAR,T.G. SHIVASHANKARE GOWDA

112, J.C.ROAD TOWN HALL BENGALURU-560 002. PAN-AAACC 6106G …RESPONDENT (BY SHRI. T.SURYANARAYANA, SENIOR ADVOCATE FOR SMT. TANMAYEE RAJKUMAR, ADVOCATE) THIS INCOME TAX APPEAL IS FILED UNDER SEC.260-A OF INCOME TAX ACT 1961, ARISING OUT OF ORDER DATED:28/09/2018 PASSED IN ITA NO.1900/BANG/2017, FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2013-2014 PRAYING TO FORMULATE THE SUBSTANTIAL QUESTIONS OF LAW STATED THEREIN

COMMISSONER OF INCOME TAX vs. M/S SHAW WALLACE

In the result, the appeal fails and is hereby

Bench: ALOK ARADHE,H.T. NARENDRA PRASAD

disallowance under Section 14A of the Act. The assessee thereupon filed an appeal before the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), who by an order dated 03.07.2006 partly allowed the appeal preferred by the assessee. The assessee as well as the revenue approached the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal by filing appeals. The Tribunal, 5 by an order dated 17.05.2013 partly allowed

THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX vs. M/S. CANARA BANK

In the result, we do not find any merit in this

Bench: ALOK ARADHE,H.T. NARENDRA PRASAD

112, J.C. ROAD BANGALORE-560002 PAN: AAACC 6106G. ... RESPONDENT (BY SRI. T. SURYANARAYANA, ADV.) - - - THIS ITA IS FILED UNDER SECTION 260-A OF I.T. ACT, 1961 ARISING OUT OF ORDER DATED 30.12.2014 PASSED IN ITA NO.516/BANG/2014 FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2009-10, PRAYING TO: 2 (I) FORMULATE THE SUBSTANTIAL QUESTIONS OF LAW STATED ABOVE. (II) ALLOW THE APPEAL

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

THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX vs. M/S BHARAT FRITZ WERNER LTD

In the result, appeal is disposed of

Bench: ALOK ARADHE,R. NATARAJ

disallowed the claim. However, the Tribunal has allowed the claim of the assessee with regard to write off of expenditure relating to loose tools only on the 6 ground that it is not revenue in nature but is capital in nature which is factually incorrect as it is not the reason recorded by the Assessing Officer. It is further submitted

THE COMMISSIONER OF vs. M/S CANARA BANK

In the result, appeal stands dismissed

Bench: S.SUJATHA,S RACHAIAH

112, JC ROAD BENGALURU – 560 002. PAN:AAACG106G. ...RESPONDENT (BY SHRI T. SURYANARAYANA, ADVOCATE (PHYSICAL HEARING)) THIS INCOME TAX APPEAL IS FILED UNDER SECTION 260-A OF INCOME TAX ACT 1961, ARISING OUT OF ORDER DATED 17.11.2017 PASSED IN ITA NO.843/Bang/2017, FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2012- 2013. THIS INCOME TAX APPEAL COMING ON FOR HEARING, THIS DAY, S.SUJATHA J., DELIVERED

THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX vs. M/S CANARA BANK

In the result, we do not find any merit in this appeal, the same fails

Bench: ALOK ARADHE,H.T. NARENDRA PRASAD

112, J.C. ROAD BANGALORE PAN: AAACC 6106G. ... RESPONDENT (BY SRI. T. SURYANARAYANA, ADV.) - - - THIS ITA IS FILED UNDER SECTION 260-A OF I.T. ACT, 1961 ARISING OUT OF ORDER DATED 11.12.2015 PASSED IN ITA NO.765/BANG/2011 FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 1996-97, PRAYING TO: (I) FORMULATE THE SUBSTANTIAL QUESTIONS OF LAW STATED ABOVE. (II) ALLOW THE APPEAL AND SET ASIDE

THE COMMISSINER OF INCOME -TAX, vs. M/S CANARA BANK

In the result, we do not find any merit in this

Bench: ALOK ARADHE,H.T. NARENDRA PRASAD

112, J.C. ROAD BANGALORE PAN: AAACC 6106G. ... RESPONDENT (BY SRI. T. SURYANARAYANA RAO, ADV.) - - - THIS I.T.A. IS FILED UNDER SECTION 260-A OF I.T.ACT, 1961, ARISING OUT OF ORDER DATED 11-12-2015 2 PASSED IN ITA NO.768/BANG/2011, FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 1999-2000, PRAYING TO: I. FORMULATE THE SUBSTANTIAL QUESTIONS OF LAW STATED ABOVE. II. ALLOW THE APPEAL

THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME EXEMPTION vs. M/S CANARA BANK

Bench: CHIEF JUSTICE,C M JOSHI

112, CANARA BANK BUILDING J.C. ROAD BANGALORE - 560 002 REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY. …RESPONDENT THIS INCOME TAX APPEAL IS FILED UNDER SECTION 260-A OF INCOME TAX ACT 1961, PRAYING TO ALLOW THE APPEAL AND SET ASIDE THE ORDERS PASSED BY THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, BENGALURU IN ITA NO.689/Bang/2024 DATED 30.07.2024 FOR ASSESSMENT YEAR 2016-17 ANNEXURE

COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-III vs. M./S WIPRO LIMITED

The appeal is disposed of

Bench: ALOK ARADHE,H.T. NARENDRA PRASAD

disallowance in respect of reimbursement of medical expenses granted by the assessee to its employees by ignoring the fact that the same is excluded as per proviso to viii of Section 17(2) of the Act read with Rule 3. It is also submitted that as per Clause 6 expenses relating to medical treatment incurred by the employer

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

The appeals stand disposed of, accordingly

Bench: N.KUMAR,B.SREENIVASE GOWDA

Section 145A of the Income- tax Act which was inserted with effect from assessment year 1999-2000. The said provision states that the valuation of stock should include the amount of any tax duty, cess or fee - 94 - actually paid or incurred to bring the goods to its present location and condition. The Department has followed a consistent stand

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

The appeals stand disposed of, accordingly

Bench: N.KUMAR,B.SREENIVASE GOWDA

Section 145A of the Income- tax Act which was inserted with effect from assessment year 1999-2000. The said provision states that the valuation of stock should include the amount of any tax duty, cess or fee - 94 - actually paid or incurred to bring the goods to its present location and condition. The Department has followed a consistent stand

M/S ACE DESIGNERS LIMITED vs. THE ADDITIONAL COMMISSIONER OF

In the result, the order of the Tribunal dated

Bench: ALOK ARADHE,H.T. NARENDRA PRASAD

disallowing the claim of business loss of Rs.3,41,23,200/- and concluded the assessment. The aforesaid order was challenged by the assessee before the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) who by order dated 31.08.2009 dismissed the appeal of the assessee. The assessee thereupon approached the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal. The tribunal by an order dated 14.12.2012 dismissed the appeal

BHARAT FRITZ WERNER LTD vs. THE JOINT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX (OSD)

In the result, the appeal is disposed of

Bench: ALOK ARADHE,H.T. NARENDRA PRASAD

Section 260A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as the Act for short) has been preferred by the assessee. The subject matter of the appeal pertains to the Assessment year 2009-10. The appeal was admitted by a bench of this Court vide order dated 06.12.2017 on the following substantial question of law: (i) The Tribunal