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

Bench: S.SUJATHA,RAVI V HOSMANI

3) of the Act was passed 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 COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX vs. M/S HIMALAYA DRUG COMPANY

Bench: S.SUJATHA,RAVI V HOSMANI

3) of the Act was passed 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 COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX vs. M/S HIMALAYA DRUG COMPANY

Bench: S.SUJATHA,RAVI V HOSMANI

3) of the Act was passed 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 COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX vs. M/S HIMALAYA DRUG COMPANY

Bench: S.SUJATHA,RAVI V HOSMANI

3) of the Act was passed 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

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

COFFEEDAY GLOBAL LTD. vs. ADDITIONAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX

In the result, the orders dated 21

Bench: ALOK ARADHE,ASHOK S.KINAGI

3. Being aggrieved by the order passed by the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), the assessee as well as the revenue filed theappeals before the tribunal The tribunal by an order dated 21.06.2017 partly allowed theappeal preferred by the assessee and revenue and held as under: (i) claim for disallowance under Section 14A of ht e Act was set aside

COFFEEDAY GLOBAL LTD. vs. ADDITIONAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX

In the result, the orders dated 21

Bench: ALOK ARADHE,ASHOK S.KINAGI

3. Being aggrieved by the order passed by the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), the assessee as well as the revenue filed theappeals before the tribunal The tribunal by an order dated 21.06.2017 partly allowed theappeal preferred by the assessee and revenue and held as under: (i) claim for disallowance under Section 14A of ht e Act was set aside

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

3. Being aggrieved by the order passed by the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), the assessee as well as the revenue filed theappeals before the tribunal The tribunal by an order dated 21.06.2017 partly allowed theappeal preferred by the assessee and revenue and held as under: (i) claim for disallowance under Section 14A of ht e Act was set aside

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

3) of the Act for Assessment Years 2005-06, 2006-07, 2008- 09 and 2009-10. 7. It is also urged that the assessee has to make a provision for expenditure to adhere to the matching concept and the tax can be deducted only if the party has been identified and a permanent account number is obtained from such party

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

In the result, the appeal is disposed of

Bench: ALOK ARADHE,ASHOK S.KINAGI

124/-, income from pharmacy amounting to Rs.50,66,973/- and considered accumulation of 15% on net income instead of gross receipts which resulted into addition of Rs.1,70,68,779/- and also other disallowances. The assessee thereupon filed an appeal before the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals). The Commissioner of Income Tax 4 (Appeals) maintained the order of the Assessing

OFFICIAL LIQUIDATOR

In the result, the appeal is disposed of

Bench: RAGHVENDRA S.CHAUHAN

124/-, income from pharmacy amounting to Rs.50,66,973/- and considered accumulation of 15% on net income instead of gross receipts which resulted into addition of Rs.1,70,68,779/- and also other disallowances. The assessee thereupon filed an appeal before the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals). The Commissioner of Income Tax 4 (Appeals) maintained the order of the Assessing

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

3. Facts giving rise to the filing of this appeal briefly stated are that the assessee is engaged in developing and building housing projects. The appellant had constructed two blocks of 108 residential flats namely, 'Epitone Crown'. The assessee is following "Percentage Completion Method" that is Accounting Standard-7 as prescribed by the Institute of Chartered Accountants in accordance with

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

Bench: V KAMESWAR RAO,S RACHAIAH

Section 92CA could be invalid and bad in law. 7. It is for this precise reason, tribunal has rightly held that order passed by the TPO and DRP is unsustainable in the eyes of law. The said finding is based on the authoritative principles enunciated by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Kolhapur Canesugar Works Ltd referred to herein supra

SYNDICATE BANK vs. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX

The appeal is allowed in

Bench: SATISH CHANDRA SHARMA,R. NATARAJ

3. Similarly, for the assessment year 2012-13, the assessee filed its return of income and claimed deduction under Section 36(1)(viia) of the Act amounting to Rs.11,25,35,06,311/- comprised of Rs.10,21,38,42,187/- towards the provision for rural advances and Rs.1,03,96,64,124/- being 7.5% of the total income. The return

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 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