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

Bench: S.SUJATHA,VINEET KOTHARI

119 ITR 872. The Division Bench of the Calcutta High Court upholding the Order of the learned Single Judge in a Writ Petition in R.L. Rajghoria Vs. Income-Tax Officer [1977] 107 ITR 347 held that the word ‘thereon’ appearing in Section 33(4) of the Income Tax Act, 1922 akin to Section 254 (1) of the Income

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

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

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

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 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. 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 by Assessing Officer on the ground that as per Section

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

The appeal is dismissed accordingly

Bench: SATISH CHANDRA SHARMA,V SRISHANANDA

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 confirmed by the Disputes Resolution Panel vide directions dated 30.12.2013 and finally the assessing officer has passed a final order incorporating the directions of the Dispute Resolution

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

The appeal is dismissed accordingly

Bench: R DEVDAS

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 confirmed by the Disputes Resolution Panel vide directions dated 30.12.2013 and finally the assessing officer has passed a final order incorporating the directions of the Dispute Resolution

THE PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER vs. M/S OBULAPURAM MINING

Bench: K.SOMASHEKAR,UMESH M ADIGA

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 Ltd. (1969) 74 ITR 723 (Bam): TC 15R.843. Learned counsel for the Revenue submitted

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

C' BENCH, BENGALURU IN ITA NO.1372/BANG/2014 RELATING TO ASSESSMENT YEAR 2007-08 VIDE ITS ORDER DATED 29.02.2016. THIS I.T.A. COMING ON FOR FINAL HEARING, THIS DAY, ALOK ARADHE J., DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: JUDGMENT This appeal under Section 260A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as the Act for short) has been preferred by the assessee. The subject

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

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

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

GOPAL S. PANDIT vs. THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX

Bench: S.SUJATHA,VINEET KOTHARI

C/ Approval/2010-11 dated 15.12.2010. But, the said Authority, namely, Joint Commissioner did not give any notice and opportunity of hearing to the Assessee before granting approval to the Draft Assessment Order of the Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax. Therefore, a substantial question of law arises in the present case. 4. Against the aforesaid Assessment Order passed by the Deputy Commissioner

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

Appeal is allowed

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

2 ‘the Act’ in short. 3 Assessing Officer I.T.A No.744/2018 4 5. On appeal, CIT(A)4 vide order dated December 29, 2016 has allowed the loss by holding that speculative transactions have a specific meaning under Section 43(5) of the Act and that even if the investments are made out of corpus fund, when interest is earned thereon

PRATHIBHA JEWELLERY HOUSE vs. THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS)

Bench: The Hon'Ble Dr.Justice Vineet Kothari

2. Having regard to the rival contentions and the material on record, we find that the assessee has raised an additional ground of appeal particularly against the existence of conditions for issuance of warrant of search and the validity of the assumption of jurisdiction u/s 153A read with section 143(3) of the Act. In the remand report