THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX vs. M/S QUEST GLOBAL ENGINEERING SERVICES PVT. LTD.,

In the result, we don to find any

Bench: ALOK ARADHE,R. NATARAJ

116(5) of Finance Act, 2003 and Section 2(bb) and 2(bc) of Securities Contracts (Regulation) Act, 1956 and therefore, the expression 'commodity' does not include exchange of currency. Reference has also been made to Article 366(12) of the Constitution, Section 2(52) of the Goods and Service Tax Act and Section 2(7) of the Sale

M/S BANGALORE ELECTRICITY SUPPLY COMPANY LTD vs. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX

In the result, the order passed by the tribunal

Bench: ALOK ARADHE,R. NATARAJ

disallowed the deduction claimed under Section 80IA(4)(iv)(c) of the Act and held that computation as per normal provisions of the Act is adopted as tax liability. 3. The assessee thereupon filed an appeal before the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), who by an order dated 10.02.2009 dismissed the appeal preferred by the assessee. The assessee thereupon approached

PR COMMISSIONER OF vs. M/S SYNGENE

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

Bench: ALOK ARADHE,H.T. NARENDRA PRASAD

disallowed the deduction claimed by the assessee under Section 10B of the Act to the tune of Rs.21,31,59,892/- and added it to the income of the assessee. 5 4. The assessee thereupon approached the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) who by an order dated 22.06.2012 inter alia held that Assessing Officer as unable to counter the claim

THE PR. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX vs. M/S FIBRES AND FABRICS INTERNATIONAL PVT. LTD.,

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

Bench: ALOK ARADHE,HEMANT CHANDANGOUDAR

116 TAXMANN.COM 151 (SC). 6. On the other hand, learned counsel for the assessee submitted that there was no tangible material before the Assessing Officer to initiate the proceeding under Section 147 of the Act and the reasons recorded by the Assessing Officer do not disclose any tangible material in possession of the Assessing Officer on the basis of which

THE PR COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIT(A) vs. M/S BIESSE MANUFACTURING COMPANY PVT LTD

Bench: S.SUJATHA,VINEET KOTHARI

disallowance made Date of Judgment 05-07-2018, ITA No.1085/2017 The Pr. Commissioner of Income Tax & another Vs. M/s.Biesse Manufacturing Company Pvt. Ltd., 5/12 towards belated remittance of employees contribution to PF and ESI by the Assessing Authority u/s. 2(24)(x) of the Act, is no longer res integra and is covered by the decision of the Division Bench

THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME - TAX vs. M/S. MAHAVEER MARVEL

In the result, the appeal fails and the same is

Bench: ALOK ARADHE,H.T. NARENDRA PRASAD

disallowed and the profits earned from the project in question i.e., Rs.3,05,61,970/- were treated as income and subjected to levy of tax and interest. 3. Being aggrieved, the assessee filed an appeal before the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals). The Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) by an order 5 dated 10.11.2011 inter alia held that after

THE COMMISSIONER vs. M/S GOPALAN ENTERPRISES

In the result, the appeal is disposed of

Bench: ALOK ARADHE,H.T. NARENDRA PRASAD

disallowed the claim of deduction of the assessee under Section 80IA(4)(iii) of the Act. The assessee thereupon filed an appeal before the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), who by an order dated 28.03.2013, by placing reliance on the decision of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Bengaluru in the case of PIRAMAL PROJECTS (P) 5 LTD., held that

THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX vs. SMT MEENAKSHI DEVI AVARU

In the result, the appeal is disposed of

Bench: S.SUJATHA,VINEET KOTHARI

disallowed the claim of deduction of the assessee under Section 80IA(4)(iii) of the Act. The assessee thereupon filed an appeal before the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), who by an order dated 28.03.2013, by placing reliance on the decision of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Bengaluru in the case of PIRAMAL PROJECTS (P) 5 LTD., held that

HICAL AEROSPACE PRIVATE LIMTED

In the result, the appeal is disposed of

Bench: KRISHNA S DIXIT

disallowed the claim of deduction of the assessee under Section 80IA(4)(iii) of the Act. The assessee thereupon filed an appeal before the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), who by an order dated 28.03.2013, by placing reliance on the decision of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Bengaluru in the case of PIRAMAL PROJECTS (P) 5 LTD., held that

OFFICIAL LIQUIDATOR

In the result, the appeal is disposed of

Bench: RAVI MALIMATH

disallowed the claim of deduction of the assessee under Section 80IA(4)(iii) of the Act. The assessee thereupon filed an appeal before the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), who by an order dated 28.03.2013, by placing reliance on the decision of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Bengaluru in the case of PIRAMAL PROJECTS (P) 5 LTD., held that

M/S METRIX PRECISION COMPONENTS PVT. LIMITED vs. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX

In the result, the appeal is allowed

Bench: ALOK ARADHE,H.T. NARENDRA PRASAD

disallowed the claim of deduction of the assessee under Section 10B of the Act. 3. The assessee thereupon filed an appeal before the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals). The Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) by an order dated 20.09.2012 inter alia held that the assessee has not satisfied the conditions required for claiming deduction under Section

THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-III vs. SMT.KAMAKSHI DEVI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is

Bench: S.SUJATHA,VINEET KOTHARI

disallowed the amount of bid loss claimed in the memo of income and an amount of Rs.7,20,32,155/- was added to the income returned by the assessee. It was noticed that in bid loss claimed in two places that is one in profit and loss account and other in memo of income, in order to charge

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

SMT DEEPA S PAI vs. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF

In the result, the order passed by the Assessing Officer as well

Bench: ALOK ARADHE,RAVI V HOSMANI

disallowed the assesse’s claim for treating the shares as stock-in- trade and determined the income of the assessee at `2,75,48,980/-. Being aggrieved by the order of assessment, the assessee filed an appeal before Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) which was dismissed by an order dated 17.03.2010. The assessee filed an appeal before the Income

THE PR. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (4) vs. M/S CHAMUNDI WINERY AND DISTILLERY

Bench: S.SUJATHA,VINEET KOTHARI

SECTION 37 OF THE ACT. Page No 7 CIT Vs. Rajasthan State Government Sugar Mills Ltd 393 ITR 421 (Raj) 32-42 8 CIT Vs. G Balraj [2017] 390 ITR 50 (Kar) 43-47 10 CIT Vs. Chandulal Keshaval & Co., 38 ITR 601 (SC) 58-63 15 Sasoon J David

PR. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX vs. M/S CHAMUNDI WINERY AND DISTILLERY

Bench: S.SUJATHA,VINEET KOTHARI

SECTION 37 OF THE ACT. Page No 7 CIT Vs. Rajasthan State Government Sugar Mills Ltd 393 ITR 421 (Raj) 32-42 8 CIT Vs. G Balraj [2017] 390 ITR 50 (Kar) 43-47 10 CIT Vs. Chandulal Keshaval & Co., 38 ITR 601 (SC) 58-63 15 Sasoon J David

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

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