PR. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX vs. SHRI. GALI JANARDHANA REDDY

Bench: K.SOMASHEKAR,UMESH M ADIGA

disallowed(Rs) (I) (II) (III) 2009-10 28,76,23,325 9,95,82,217 2010-11 2,29,05,056 1,46,91,363 15. Of these the assessing officer found that to the extent given in column (III) above, the appellant was unable to substantiate the said expenses claimed before the assessing officer. 16.In respect of assessment

PR. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX vs. SMT. G. LAKSHMI ARUNA

Bench: K.SOMASHEKAR,UMESH M ADIGA

Disallowed (Rs.) (I) (II) (III) 2009-10 28,76,23,325 9,95,82,217 2010-11 2,29,05,056 1,46,91,363 Of these, the Assessing Officer found that to the extent given in column 3 above, the appellant was unable to substantiate the said expense claimed before the Assessing Officer. 16. In respect of assessment

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

Bench: S.SUJATHA,VINEET KOTHARI

B”, vide its Order dated 22/02/2017 for AY 2011-12 held partly in favour of the Appellant – Assessee that Appellant Assessee was not liable to pay tax on ‘Distribution of Dividend’ as defined under Section 2(22)(d) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as the ‘Act’ for short) in terms of Section

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

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

Bench: The Hon'Ble Mr.Justice Aravind Kumar

B’ GROUP THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING: ORDER The issue involved in the present writ petition relates to the order passed by the Central Board of Direct Taxes (in short ‘CBDT’), rejecting the application 3 filed by the petitioner-assessee under Section 119(2) of Income Tax Act, 1961 (‘Act’ for short). 2. For the assessment years

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

THE PR. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX vs. M/S. TE CONNECTIVITY INDIA PVT. LTD.,

Accordingly dispose of the appeal as allowed

Bench: ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE,S RACHAIAH

B” Bench, Bengaluru (‘Tribunal’ for short) in IT(TP)A No. 738/Bang/2022, whereby the Tribunal has allowed the appeal filed by the respondent herein challenging the order dated 30.03.2022 passed by the PCIT under Section 263 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (‘the Act’ for short). 2. Brief facts to be noted are, the respondent- assessee is a Company engaged

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

The appeal is dismissed accordingly

Bench: SATISH CHANDRA SHARMA,V SRISHANANDA

b) disallowance of depreciation claimed by the assessee at 60% on switches and routers on the ground that they are not parts and accessories of computers; and (c) disallowance of foreign exchange loss claimed by the assessee as a deduction on account of fluctuation in foreign exchange in respect forward contracts.” 6. The disallowances proposed by the assessing officer were

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

The appeal is dismissed accordingly

Bench: R DEVDAS

b) disallowance of depreciation claimed by the assessee at 60% on switches and routers on the ground that they are not parts and accessories of computers; and (c) disallowance of foreign exchange loss claimed by the assessee as a deduction on account of fluctuation in foreign exchange in respect forward contracts.” 6. The disallowances proposed by the assessing officer were

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

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

GOPAL S. PANDIT vs. THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX

Bench: S.SUJATHA,VINEET KOTHARI

b) of sub-section (1) of section 153B, except with the prior approval of the Joint Commissioner. Date of Judgment 25-06-2018, ITA No.34/2017 Gopal S. Pandit Vs The Commissioner of Income Tax & another . 7/16 Provided that nothing contained in this section shall apply where the assessment or reassessment order, as the case may be, is required

THE PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER vs. M/S OBULAPURAM MINING

Bench: K.SOMASHEKAR,UMESH M ADIGA

b) that it must have been borrowed for the purpose of business, and (c) that the assessee must have paid interest on the said amount and claimed it as a deduction. It is to be noted that in Madhav Prasad's case (supra), reference was made to a decision of the Bombay High Court in CIT vs. Bombay Samachar

PR COMMISSIONER OF vs. KARNATAKA STATE INDUSTRIAL INFRASTRUCTURE

In the result, we find no merit in the

Bench: ALOK ARADHE,H.T. NARENDRA PRASAD

B’ BENCH BENGALURU AS SOUGHT FOR IN THE RESPONDENT-ASSESSEE’S CASE, IN APPEAL PROCEEDINGS IN ITA NO.1862/BANG/2013 FOR A.Y. 2010-2011 & GRANT SUCH OTHER RELIEF AS DEEMED FIT, IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE. THESE ITA’S COMING ON FOR HEARING, THIS DAY, ALOK ARADHE J., DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: 7 JUDGMENT Mr.E.I.Sanmathi, learned counsel for the Revenue. Mr.A.Shankar, learned senior

PR COMMISSIONER OF vs. KARNATAKA STATE INDUSTRIAL INFRASTRUCTURE

In the result, we find no merit in the

Bench: ALOK ARADHE,H.T. NARENDRA PRASAD

B’ BENCH BENGALURU AS SOUGHT FOR IN THE RESPONDENT-ASSESSEE’S CASE, IN APPEAL PROCEEDINGS IN ITA NO.1862/BANG/2013 FOR A.Y. 2010-2011 & GRANT SUCH OTHER RELIEF AS DEEMED FIT, IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE. THESE ITA’S COMING ON FOR HEARING, THIS DAY, ALOK ARADHE J., DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: 7 JUDGMENT Mr.E.I.Sanmathi, learned counsel for the Revenue. Mr.A.Shankar, learned senior

PR COMMISSIONER OF vs. KARNATAKA STATE INDUSTRIAL INFRASTRUCTURE

In the result, we find no merit in the

Bench: ALOK ARADHE,H.T. NARENDRA PRASAD

B’ BENCH BENGALURU AS SOUGHT FOR IN THE RESPONDENT-ASSESSEE’S CASE, IN APPEAL PROCEEDINGS IN ITA NO.1862/BANG/2013 FOR A.Y. 2010-2011 & GRANT SUCH OTHER RELIEF AS DEEMED FIT, IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE. THESE ITA’S COMING ON FOR HEARING, THIS DAY, ALOK ARADHE J., DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: 7 JUDGMENT Mr.E.I.Sanmathi, learned counsel for the Revenue. Mr.A.Shankar, learned senior