M/S. DEEPAK CABLES (INDIA) LTD vs. CENTRAL BOARD OF DIRECT TAXES

Bench: The Hon'Ble Mr.Justice Aravind Kumar

119(2) of Income Tax Act, 1961 (‘Act’ for short). 2. For the assessment years 2006-07, 2007-08, 2008-09, returns of income came to be filed by the petitioner and they were filed beyond the prescribed period. Deduction claimed by petitioner under Section 80-IB was disallowed

M/S GAONKAR MINES vs. THE ADDL COMMISSIONER

Bench: The Hon'Ble Dr.Justice Vineet Kothari

119[2][a] of the Act for the assessment year 2005-06 vide Annex-K and etc. This Writ Petition coming on for preliminary hearing this day, the Court made the following:- ORDER Mr.Mallaharao, Adv., for Mr.S.Parthasarathi, Adv. for Petitioner The petitioner, M/s Gaonkar Mines has challenged the impugned order passed by the respondent – Chief Commissioner of Income-tax (CCIT

TIMES VPL LIMITED vs. THE COMMISSIONR OF INCOME TAX

In the result, the order passed by the

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

disallowed under Section 40(a)(ia) of the Act. In the notice, it is 6 further stated that the order of assessment dated 22.12.2009 is erroneous and is prejudicial to the interest of the Revenue. 6. The assessee furnished detailed submissions on 17.11.2011 in which inter alia, it was pointed out that the contract in question was a contract

PR COMMISSIONER OF vs. KARNATAKA STATE INDUSTRIAL INFRASTRUCTURE

In the result, we find no merit in the

Bench: ALOK ARADHE,H.T. NARENDRA PRASAD

Section 14A of the Act for a sum of Rs.1,76,00,000/- and difference of Rs.1,57,35,410/- was disallowed and added back to income. The assessing authority also made other disallowances. Being aggrieved, the assesse filed appeal before the Commissioner of 12 Income Tax, who, by order dated 17.9.2013 has deleted the additions made by the assessing

PR COMMISSIONER OF vs. KARNATAKA STATE INDUSTRIAL INFRASTRUCTURE

In the result, we find no merit in the

Bench: ALOK ARADHE,H.T. NARENDRA PRASAD

Section 14A of the Act for a sum of Rs.1,76,00,000/- and difference of Rs.1,57,35,410/- was disallowed and added back to income. The assessing authority also made other disallowances. Being aggrieved, the assesse filed appeal before the Commissioner of 12 Income Tax, who, by order dated 17.9.2013 has deleted the additions made by the assessing

PR COMMISSIONER OF vs. KARNATAKA STATE INDUSTRIAL INFRASTRUCTURE

In the result, we find no merit in the

Bench: ALOK ARADHE,H.T. NARENDRA PRASAD

Section 14A of the Act for a sum of Rs.1,76,00,000/- and difference of Rs.1,57,35,410/- was disallowed and added back to income. The assessing authority also made other disallowances. Being aggrieved, the assesse filed appeal before the Commissioner of 12 Income Tax, who, by order dated 17.9.2013 has deleted the additions made by the assessing

PR COMMISSIONER OF vs. KARNATAKA STATE INDUSTRIAL INFRASTRUCTURE

In the result, we find no merit in the

Bench: ALOK ARADHE,H.T. NARENDRA PRASAD

Section 14A of the Act for a sum of Rs.1,76,00,000/- and difference of Rs.1,57,35,410/- was disallowed and added back to income. The assessing authority also made other disallowances. Being aggrieved, the assesse filed appeal before the Commissioner of 12 Income Tax, who, by order dated 17.9.2013 has deleted the additions made by the assessing

THE PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER vs. M/S OBULAPURAM MINING

Bench: K.SOMASHEKAR,UMESH M ADIGA

disallowance is totally vitiated. Revenue's contentions not correct: (Finality of assessment proceedings). Due procedure not followed 31 due to "oversight" "inadvertent or "mistake". Once income tax order is passed the same cannot be re- examined except within the permissible provisions and time limit prescribed under the Act. In other words, the Assessing Officer is not vested with second innings

THE PR COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX vs. M/S MPHASIS LTD

The appeal is dismissed accordingly

Bench: SATISH CHANDRA SHARMA,V SRISHANANDA

disallowance of foreign exchange loss on forward contracts of Rs.26,31,35,000/- by following the decision of Bombay High Court in the case of CIT vs. D.Chethan and Co., in ITA No.278 of 2014 dated 01.10.2016, by allowing the foreign exchange loss as business loss even when the assessee camouflaged the forward contract loss i.e., marked to market loss

SMT. PUNEETHA @ PUNEETHA B. A. vs. SRI. D. RAVI

The appeal is dismissed accordingly

Bench: R DEVDAS

disallowance of foreign exchange loss on forward contracts of Rs.26,31,35,000/- by following the decision of Bombay High Court in the case of CIT vs. D.Chethan and Co., in ITA No.278 of 2014 dated 01.10.2016, by allowing the foreign exchange loss as business loss even when the assessee camouflaged the forward contract loss i.e., marked to market loss

M/S THE KARNATAKA STATE CO-OPERATIVE APEX BANK vs. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX

In the result, the appeal is disposed of

Bench: ALOK ARADHE,HEMANT CHANDANGOUDAR

119 of the Act. It is further submitted that Section 148 of the Act provides a remedy to the revenue and is not a remedy to the assessee. It is also submitted that proceeding under Section 148 can be initiated only in respect of such income which escapes assessment and the same has been interpreted by the Supreme Court

THE PR. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX vs. M/S CISCO SYSTEMS

The appeals are allowed; the impugned

Bench: SATISH CHANDRA SHARMA,R. NATARAJ

disallowed the excess depreciation claimed on networking equipments. 3. The Principal Commissioner of Income Tax, Bengaluru, thereafter issued a notice under Section 263 of the Act of 1961 on 5.3.2015 and called upon the assessee to explain as to why the assessment order passed by the assessing officer under Section 143(3) of the Act of 1961 should

M/S SUBEX LTD vs. THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-III,

In the result, appeal is partly allowed as indicated

Bench: S.SUJATHA,RAVI V HOSMANI

119; or (d) the order has not been passed in accordance with any decision which is prejudicial to the assessee, rendered by the jurisdictional High Court or Supreme Court in the case of the assessee or any other person. (2) No order shall be made under sub- section (1) after the expiry of two years from

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 PR COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX vs. M/S VSL MINING COMPANY PVT LTD

Appeal is dismissed as being

Bench: S.G.PANDIT,C.M. POONACHA

119 PAN AACCV 0903E …RESPONDENT (BY SRI A SHANKAR, SENIOR ADVOCATE A/W SRI LAVA M, ADVOCATE) 2 THIS ITA / INCOME TAX APPEAL IS FILED UNDER SEC.260-A OF INCOME TAX ACT 1961, PRAYING TO FORMULATE THE SUBSTANTIAL QUESTIONS OF LAW STATED ABOVE AND ALLOW THE APPEAL AND SET ASIDE THE ORDERS PASSED BY THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, BENGALURU

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

The appeals are disposed of

Bench: ALOK ARADHE,RAVI V HOSMANI

119/- under long term capital loss after set off of short term capital gain of Rs.51,06,737/-. According to Assessing Officer 7 the set off of short term capital gain against long term capital loss was not permissible under Section 70(3) of the Act. An order was passed withdrawing an amount of Rs.51,06,737/- from long term

M/S SITARAM JINDAL FOUNDATION vs. THE ADDL. DIRECTOR OF

Appeal is allowed

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

Section 11(5) of the Act. On redemption it has suffered a capital loss. The AO has disallowed the deduction on premise that the corpus fund was exempted from tax. It is not in dispute that the assessee-foundation has suffered loss. It is settled that tax can be imposed on real profits and it cannot be done without deducting

THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX vs. THE SANDUR MANGANESE and IRON ORES LTD

Bench: N.KUMAR,H.S.KEMPANNA

119. - Respondent (By Sri S. Parthasarathi, P. Dinesh and K. Mallanarao, Advocates This appeal is filed under Section 260-A of I.T. Act, 1961, praying to set aside the order dated 23.12.2005 passed in ITA No.44/Bang/2000 and etc. This appeal coming for final hearing on this day, N.Kumar J, delivered the following: : 2 : JUDGMENT 1. This appeal