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 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 vs. M/S HINDUSTAN AERONAUTICS LTD

In the result, the order of the

Bench: ALOK ARADHE,H.T. NARENDRA PRASAD

disallowance of expenditure in terms of Rule 8D is justified. 10. Learned counsel for the revenue in I.T.A.No.468/2016 submitted that finding of the tribunal allowing the claim under Section35(iv) of the Act for the first time before the appellate authority without revising the return of the income is incorrect and is contrary to provisions of Section

HINDUSTAN AERONAUTICS LIMITED vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER

In the result, the order of the

Bench: ALOK ARADHE,H.T. NARENDRA PRASAD

disallowance of expenditure in terms of Rule 8D is justified. 10. Learned counsel for the revenue in I.T.A.No.468/2016 submitted that finding of the tribunal allowing the claim under Section35(iv) of the Act for the first time before the appellate authority without revising the return of the income is incorrect and is contrary to provisions of Section

M/S SUTURES INDIA (P) LTD vs. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX

In the result, the common order passed by the

Bench: ALOK ARADHE,HEMANT CHANDANGOUDAR

127 DTR 327 and consequently passed a perverse order on the facts and circumstances of the case? (d) Whether the authorities below are justified in law in charging interest under section 234 C of the Act on the facts and circumstance of the case?" 2. Facts leading to filing of this appeal briefly stated are that the assessee

THE COMMISSIONER OF vs. THE KARNATAKA STATE

Bench: ABHAY SHREENIWAS OKA (CJ),S.G.PANDIT

disallowing the depreciation which was claimed under section 32 of the Act was that once the capital expenditure is treated as application of income for charitable purposes, the assesses had virtually enjoyed a 100 per cent. write off of the cost of assets and, therefore, the grant of depreciation would amount to giving double benefit to the assessee. Though

M/S GOOGLE INDIA PRIVATE LTD vs. THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX

The appeals stand disposed of

Bench: SATISH CHANDRA SHARMA,S VISHWAJITH SHETTY

disallowance under Section 40(a)(i) of the IT Act was made on account of non-deduction of tax at source for the sums payable by the appellant to Google Ireland under the Distribution 7 Agreement. The assessing officer vide common order dated 22.2.2013 for the assessment years 2007-08 to 2012-13 passed an order under Section

M/S GOOGLE INDIA PRIVATE LTD vs. THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX

The appeals stand disposed of

Bench: SATISH CHANDRA SHARMA,S VISHWAJITH SHETTY

disallowance under Section 40(a)(i) of the IT Act was made on account of non-deduction of tax at source for the sums payable by the appellant to Google Ireland under the Distribution 7 Agreement. The assessing officer vide common order dated 22.2.2013 for the assessment years 2007-08 to 2012-13 passed an order under Section

M/S GOOGLE INDIA PRIVATE LTD vs. THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX

The appeals stand disposed of

Bench: SATISH CHANDRA SHARMA,S VISHWAJITH SHETTY

disallowance under Section 40(a)(i) of the IT Act was made on account of non-deduction of tax at source for the sums payable by the appellant to Google Ireland under the Distribution 7 Agreement. The assessing officer vide common order dated 22.2.2013 for the assessment years 2007-08 to 2012-13 passed an order under Section

THE PR COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX vs. M/S GOOGLE INDIA PRIVATE LTD

The appeals stand disposed of

Bench: SATISH CHANDRA SHARMA,S VISHWAJITH SHETTY

disallowance under Section 40(a)(i) of the IT Act was made on account of non-deduction of tax at source for the sums payable by the appellant to Google Ireland under the Distribution 7 Agreement. The assessing officer vide common order dated 22.2.2013 for the assessment years 2007-08 to 2012-13 passed an order under Section

M/S GOOGLE INDIA PRIVATE LTD vs. THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX

The appeals stand disposed of

Bench: SATISH CHANDRA SHARMA,S VISHWAJITH SHETTY

disallowance under Section 40(a)(i) of the IT Act was made on account of non-deduction of tax at source for the sums payable by the appellant to Google Ireland under the Distribution 7 Agreement. The assessing officer vide common order dated 22.2.2013 for the assessment years 2007-08 to 2012-13 passed an order under Section

M/S GOOGLE INDIA PRIVATE LTD vs. THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX

The appeals stand disposed of

Bench: SATISH CHANDRA SHARMA,S VISHWAJITH SHETTY

disallowance under Section 40(a)(i) of the IT Act was made on account of non-deduction of tax at source for the sums payable by the appellant to Google Ireland under the Distribution 7 Agreement. The assessing officer vide common order dated 22.2.2013 for the assessment years 2007-08 to 2012-13 passed an order under Section

M/S GOOGLE IRELAND LIMITED vs. THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX

The appeals stand disposed of

Bench: SATISH CHANDRA SHARMA,S VISHWAJITH SHETTY

disallowance under Section 40(a)(i) of the IT Act was made on account of non-deduction of tax at source for the sums payable by the appellant to Google Ireland under the Distribution 7 Agreement. The assessing officer vide common order dated 22.2.2013 for the assessment years 2007-08 to 2012-13 passed an order under Section

M/S GOOGLE INDIA PRIVATE LTD vs. THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX

The appeals stand disposed of

Bench: SATISH CHANDRA SHARMA,S VISHWAJITH SHETTY

disallowance under Section 40(a)(i) of the IT Act was made on account of non-deduction of tax at source for the sums payable by the appellant to Google Ireland under the Distribution 7 Agreement. The assessing officer vide common order dated 22.2.2013 for the assessment years 2007-08 to 2012-13 passed an order under Section

M/S GOOGLE INDIA PRIVATE LTD vs. THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX

The appeals stand disposed of

Bench: SATISH CHANDRA SHARMA,S VISHWAJITH SHETTY

disallowance under Section 40(a)(i) of the IT Act was made on account of non-deduction of tax at source for the sums payable by the appellant to Google Ireland under the Distribution 7 Agreement. The assessing officer vide common order dated 22.2.2013 for the assessment years 2007-08 to 2012-13 passed an order under Section