PR. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX vs. M/S AMALGAMATED BEAN COFFEE TRADING CO LTD

In the result, the orders dated 21

Bench: ALOK ARADHE,ASHOK S.KINAGI

2)(ii) wherein the term 'expansion' is used and substantial 'expansion' is defined as increase in investment of plant 14 and machinery by a specified percentage out of book value of plant and machinery, whereas, under Section 35D(1)(ii) and proviso to Section 36(1)(iii) prior to its amendment used the word 'extension'. 6. It is also submitted

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

THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX vs. M/S HIMALAYA DRUG COMPANY

Bench: S.SUJATHA,RAVI V HOSMANI

disallowing certain expenses and making certain additions. Assessee preferred appeals before the Commissioner of Income Tax [Appeals] which came to be allowed in part. Being aggrieved by the same, the revenue filed appeals before the Tribunal and assessee filed cross-objections. The Tribunal allowed the cross- objections of the assessee in part dismissing the - 13 - revenue’s appeal

M/S. HIMALAYA DRUG COMPANY vs. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX

Bench: S.SUJATHA,RAVI V HOSMANI

disallowing certain expenses and making certain additions. Assessee preferred appeals before the Commissioner of Income Tax [Appeals] which came to be allowed in part. Being aggrieved by the same, the revenue filed appeals before the Tribunal and assessee filed cross-objections. The Tribunal allowed the cross- objections of the assessee in part dismissing the - 13 - revenue’s appeal

THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX vs. M/S HIMALAYA DRUG COMPANY

Bench: S.SUJATHA,RAVI V HOSMANI

disallowing certain expenses and making certain additions. Assessee preferred appeals before the Commissioner of Income Tax [Appeals] which came to be allowed in part. Being aggrieved by the same, the revenue filed appeals before the Tribunal and assessee filed cross-objections. The Tribunal allowed the cross- objections of the assessee in part dismissing the - 13 - revenue’s appeal

THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX vs. M/S HIMALAYA DRUG COMPANY

Bench: S.SUJATHA,RAVI V HOSMANI

disallowing certain expenses and making certain additions. Assessee preferred appeals before the Commissioner of Income Tax [Appeals] which came to be allowed in part. Being aggrieved by the same, the revenue filed appeals before the Tribunal and assessee filed cross-objections. The Tribunal allowed the cross- objections of the assessee in part dismissing the - 13 - revenue’s appeal

THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX vs. M/S HIMALAYA DRUG COMPANY

Bench: S.SUJATHA,RAVI V HOSMANI

disallowing certain expenses and making certain additions. Assessee preferred appeals before the Commissioner of Income Tax [Appeals] which came to be allowed in part. Being aggrieved by the same, the revenue filed appeals before the Tribunal and assessee filed cross-objections. The Tribunal allowed the cross- objections of the assessee in part dismissing the - 13 - revenue’s appeal

THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX vs. M/S HIMALAYA DRUG COMPANY

Bench: S.SUJATHA,RAVI V HOSMANI

disallowing certain expenses and making certain additions. Assessee preferred appeals before the Commissioner of Income Tax [Appeals] which came to be allowed in part. Being aggrieved by the same, the revenue filed appeals before the Tribunal and assessee filed cross-objections. The Tribunal allowed the cross- objections of the assessee in part dismissing the - 13 - revenue’s appeal

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

PR. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX vs. M/S. MOOGAMBIGAI

In the result, the appeal is disposed of

Bench: ALOK ARADHE,ASHOK S.KINAGI

2. Facts leading to filing of this appeal briefly stated are that the assessee runs an educational institution and hospital. The assessee filed return of income for the Assessment Year 2011-12 on 11.07.2011. The assessment order was passed on 27.03.2014 by which the Assessing Officer disallowed the claim of depreciation of Rs.10,73,00,124/-, income from pharmacy amounting

OFFICIAL LIQUIDATOR

In the result, the appeal is disposed of

Bench: RAGHVENDRA S.CHAUHAN

2. Facts leading to filing of this appeal briefly stated are that the assessee runs an educational institution and hospital. The assessee filed return of income for the Assessment Year 2011-12 on 11.07.2011. The assessment order was passed on 27.03.2014 by which the Assessing Officer disallowed the claim of depreciation of Rs.10,73,00,124/-, income from pharmacy amounting

PR. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-2 vs. M/S TT STEEL SERVICE INDIA PVT LTD

Bench: V KAMESWAR RAO,S RACHAIAH

2)(iii) of Income Tax Rules for a sum of Rs.14,88,870/- by holding that there was no exempted income and as such disallowance could not have been made even though said provision was rightly invoked by AO, and as such setting aside the disallowance is erroneous. Hence, he prays for substantial question of law as formulated

COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-III, vs. M/S. TELCO CONSTRUCTION

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

Bench: ALOK ARADHE,R. NATARAJ

2. Facts leading to filing of this appeal briefly stated are that the assessee is a limited company carrying on the business of manufacture, purchase and 4 sale of excavators, loaders, cranes, dumpers and spare parts, etc. The assessee filed its return of income on 27.01.2007 for the Assessment Year 2007-08 declaring an income of Rs.2

SYNDICATE BANK vs. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX

The appeal is allowed in

Bench: SATISH CHANDRA SHARMA,R. NATARAJ

2. The assessee filed its return of income for the assessment year 2011-12 and claimed deduction of a sum of Rs.9,18,82,49,133/- under Section 36 (1)(viia) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’ 3 for short). The deduction claimed comprised of a sum of Rs.8,10,96,43,882/- being

SYED ALEEMULLAH @ SYED ALLEM vs. DY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX

In the result, the appeal is disposed of

Bench: ALOK ARADHE,M.G.S. KAMAL

2. The subject matter of the appeal pertains to the assessment year 2011-12. The appeal was admitted by a Bench of this Court vide order dated 23.11.2018 on the following substantial question of law: "Whether the Tribunal was correct in holding that assessee was not entitled to deduction under Section 80-IB(10) of the 3 Income

DELL INDIA PVT LTD vs. THE JOINT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX

Bench: The Hon’Ble Mr.Justice Aravind Kumar

disallowance came to be made by the Assessing Officer on account of revenue itself recognizing the accounting policy followed by petitioner and same came to be accepted. He would also submit that subsequently for the assessment year 2010-11 Assessing officer took a different view and has held that there was no concept of deferred revenue under