THE PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER vs. M/S OBULAPURAM MINING

Bench: K.SOMASHEKAR,UMESH M ADIGA

13) of the Income Tax Act on 31.12.2013, determining total income at Rs.10,86,34,35,052/- by making various additions, which reads as under: Additional / Issues Rs. Transfer pricing adjustments 112,20,92,081/- Claim of bogus transportation expenses of iron ore 40% attributable towards illegal mining. 86,43,47,335/- Disallowance of expenses claimed under section

M/S T T K PRESTIGE LTD vs. THE UNION OF INDIA REPTD BY ITS FINANCE SECRETARY

Bench: The Hon’Ble Mr.Justice P.B. Bajanthri W.P. No.26037/2005 C/W W.P.No.4464/2007 & W.P.No.27087/2005(It)

disallowed under section 37 of the Act is outside the purview of fringe benefit tax as explained by CBDT Circular dated 29/8/2005 in response to Question No.35. Hence the contention of the assessee that levy of fringe benefit tax is double taxation is incorrect. 6. It is submitted that the petitioner has contended that the benefits/expenses can be taxed

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

Bench: K.SOMASHEKAR,UMESH M ADIGA

b) of subsection 1 of Section 153A of the Act. 9. It is further contended that Tribunal erroneously set-aside the assessment order passed for the year assessment year 2011- 12 holding that there is no satisfaction recorded by the assessing officer of the searched person (153A) in the file of the said person ignoring the intention of legislature

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

Bench: K.SOMASHEKAR,UMESH M ADIGA

Section 153C are therefore in order and in accordance with 13 law, and the same are upheld for all the assessment years involved. It was also indicated in a tabular form in the aforesaid order. The issues involved on merits were discussed and also assigning the reasons it is relating to principles of natural justice. 13. Further in paragraph

THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX vs. M/S. IBC KNOWLEDGE PARK PVT. LTD.,

In the result, the appeals filed by the Revenue

Bench: B.V.NAGARATHNA,JAYANT PATEL

13. It is contended on behalf of the Revenue that the fixtures such as, transformers, D.G.sets, elevators etc., were part of the building and income from letting out of building is chargeable to tax under the head income from house property. That the assessing officer had rightly disallowed the claim of the assessee for deduction on account of depreciation

THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX vs. M/S. IBC KNOWLEDGE PARK PVT. LTD.,

In the result, the appeals filed by the Revenue

Bench: B.V.NAGARATHNA,JAYANT PATEL

13. It is contended on behalf of the Revenue that the fixtures such as, transformers, D.G.sets, elevators etc., were part of the building and income from letting out of building is chargeable to tax under the head income from house property. That the assessing officer had rightly disallowed the claim of the assessee for deduction on account of depreciation

THE COMMISIONER OF INCOME-TAX vs. M/S IBC KNOWLEDGE PARK PVT LTD

In the result, the appeals filed by the Revenue

Bench: B.V.NAGARATHNA,JAYANT PATEL

13. It is contended on behalf of the Revenue that the fixtures such as, transformers, D.G.sets, elevators etc., were part of the building and income from letting out of building is chargeable to tax under the head income from house property. That the assessing officer had rightly disallowed the claim of the assessee for deduction on account of depreciation

SRI N GOVINDARAJU vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER

Appeal stands disposed of

Bench: S.SUJATHA,VINEET SARAN

disallowance of expenditure, were upheld by the Tribunal. Being aggrieved by the said order of the Tribunal, this appeal has been filed, which has been admitted on the following four substantial questions of law: 6 (1) Whether the Tribunal was correct in upholding re- assessment proceedings, when the reason recorded for re-opening of assessment under S.147 of Act itself

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

THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (EXEMPTION) vs. CMR JNANADHARA TRUST

The appeals stand dismissed

Bench: S.G.PANDIT,K. V. ARAVIND

2) the following, namely:- (a) the author of the trust or the founder of the institution62, (b) any person who has made a substantial contribution to the trust or institution, [that is to say, any person whose total contribution up to the end of the relevant previous year exceeds [fifty] thousand rupees

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

13. The word 'expansion' and 'extension' connote different meaning and legislature in its wisdom has used the terms differently under various provisions of the Act itself and therefore, the words cannot be used synonymously. In this connection reference may be made to Section 80-IC(2)(b) and Section 80-IE(2)(ii) where the expression 'expansion' is used

COFFEEDAY GLOBAL LTD. vs. ADDITIONAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX

In the result, the orders dated 21

Bench: ALOK ARADHE,ASHOK S.KINAGI

13. The word 'expansion' and 'extension' connote different meaning and legislature in its wisdom has used the terms differently under various provisions of the Act itself and therefore, the words cannot be used synonymously. In this connection reference may be made to Section 80-IC(2)(b) and Section 80-IE(2)(ii) where the expression 'expansion' is used

COFFEEDAY GLOBAL LTD. vs. ADDITIONAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX

In the result, the orders dated 21

Bench: ALOK ARADHE,ASHOK S.KINAGI

13. The word 'expansion' and 'extension' connote different meaning and legislature in its wisdom has used the terms differently under various provisions of the Act itself and therefore, the words cannot be used synonymously. In this connection reference may be made to Section 80-IC(2)(b) and Section 80-IE(2)(ii) where the expression 'expansion' is used

M/S J K CEMENT WORKS vs. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA

Bench: H.B.PRABHAKARA SASTRY,VINEET KOTHARI

b) Input tax shall not be deducted by an agent purchasing or selling goods on behalf of any other person other than a non-resident principal. (c) Input tax shall not be deducted by any dealer executing a works contract, (i) in respect of the amount paid or payable to any sub-contractor as the consideration for execution of part

THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX vs. PRAVEEN V DODDANAVAR

Bench: SREENIVAS HARISH KUMAR,VINEET KOTHARI

b) Input tax shall not be deducted by an agent purchasing or selling goods on behalf of any other person other than a non-resident principal. (c) Input tax shall not be deducted by any dealer executing a works contract, (i) in respect of the amount paid or payable to any sub-contractor as the consideration for execution of part

THE BAILHONGAL URBAN COOPERATIVE BANK LTD vs. THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX

Bench: S.ABDUL NAZEER,P.S.DINESH KUMAR

b) Input tax shall not be deducted by an agent purchasing or selling goods on behalf of any other person other than a non-resident principal. (c) Input tax shall not be deducted by any dealer executing a works contract, (i) in respect of the amount paid or payable to any sub-contractor as the consideration for execution of part

PR. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-2 vs. M/S.J.J.GLASTRONICS PVT LTD

The appeal stands dismissed

Bench: S.SUJATHA,J.M.KHAZI

2) Subject to the other provisions of this section, the authority concerned-- (a) may make an amendment under sub- section (1) of its own motion, and (b) shall make such amendment for rectifying any- such mistake which has been brought to its notice by the assessee or by the deductor or by the collector, and where the authority concerned

THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX vs. M/S WIPRO LTD

The appeals stand disposed of, accordingly

Bench: N.KUMAR,B.SREENIVASE GOWDA

disallowed on the ground that the DTAA with USA and Canada shows that the claim is admissible only for the taxes paid under Income Tax Act in India and Federal tax in USA and Canada. In coming to the said conclusion the authorities have failed to notice Section 91 of the Act. Statutorily the assessee would be entitled to deduction