THE PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER vs. M/S OBULAPURAM MINING

Bench: K.SOMASHEKAR,UMESH M ADIGA

131. The Tribunal has grossly erred in not considering the judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of ITO vs. M.Pirai Choodi (20 Taxmann.com 733 (2012) (SC), wherein it was held that the order of assessment passed without granting an opportunity to the assessee to cross-examine, should have been set aside by the High Court

THE PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER vs. M/S OBULAPURAM MINING

Bench: K.SOMASHEKAR,UMESH M ADIGA

D G M E N T 1.This appeal is filed by the appellants/revenue seeking to set aside the order passed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, ‘C’ Bench, Bengaluru (for short “ITAT”) in ITA No.653 (Bang) 2015, dated 29.07.2016; to confirm the order passed by the Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle 1(3), Bengaluru (for short “DCIT

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

Bench: S.SUJATHA,VINEET KOTHARI

1), unless (a) the buy-back is authorized by its articles; (b) a special resolution has been passed in general meeting of the company authorizing the buy-back: Provided that nothing contained in this clause shall apply in any case where- (A) the buy-back is or less than ten percent, of the total paid up equity Date of Judgment

PR.COMMISSIONER OF vs. M/S SACKHUMVIT TRUST

Bench: S.SUJATHA,VINEET KOTHARI

d) and 15% of income set apart in earlier assessment year cannot be construed as income of ht current year and 15% set apart out of the current year income is also excluded from income available for application?” 3. This Court in case of ‘Commissioner of Income Tax-III, Pune v. Rajasthan & Gujarati Charitable Date of Judgment

PR. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX vs. M/S. ANJUMAN-E-ISLAM

Bench: S.SUJATHA,VINEET KOTHARI

d) and 15% of income set apart in earlier assessment year cannot be construed as income of ht current year and 15% set apart out of the current year income is also excluded from income available for application?” 3. This Court in case of ‘Commissioner of Income Tax-III, Pune v. Rajasthan & Gujarati Charitable Foundation Poona’ [2018] 89 taxmann.com

M/S MYSORE POLYMERS & RUBBER PRODUCTS LTD vs. THE COMMISSIONER OF COMMERCIAL TAXES

In the result, writ appeal No

Bench: D.V.SHYLENDRA KUMAR,B.S.INDRAKALA

D. V. SHYLENDRA KUMAR AND THE HON’BLE MRS. JUSTICE B.S. INDRAKALA STRP NO. 112/2008 C/W STA NO.11/2008, 12/2008, WRIT APPEAL NO.1260/2006 (T-KST) STRP NO. 112/2008 BETWEEN: M/s. Mysore Polymers & Rubber Products Ltd., No.20-P, K.R.S. Road, Metagalli Post, Mysore-570 016. (By Sri. C.D. Nagarajan, Managing Director-69 years) …Petitioner (By Sri. T. N. Keshavamurthy, Advocate) AND: The Commissioner

PR COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX vs. M/S ENNOBLE CONSTRUCTION

Bench: KRISHNA S.DIXIT,P.KRISHNA BHAT

disallowance; the fact that for the Assessment Year 2008 – 09 some addition was made under the said head, cannot be the sole basis for making such an addition for the subsequent Assessment Year, each assessment being an independent compact. He also pleaded about CBI raid & seizure of all documents, not even a piece of paper being in his custody

COMMISISONER OF INCOME TAX vs. OHIO UNIVERSITY CHRIST COLLEGE

Bench: S.SUJATHA,VINEET KOTHARI

131 ITR 479 and Radhaswami Satsang Sabha (1954) 25 ITR 472 (Allahabad) are correct and justified findings of fact. The learned Tribunal has rightly held that Sec. 11(1)(a) of the Act does not employ the term `spent’ but `applied’, which later term `applied’ has wider connotation. 6. Depending upon the normal accounting practices adopted by the assessee

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

Bench: S.SUJATHA,RAVI V HOSMANI

D. Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Honourable ITAT was right in law in upholding the invocation of section 153C of IT Act though the notice under section 153C has been issued without proper application of mind? I. Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Honourable ITAT was right

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

Bench: S.SUJATHA,RAVI V HOSMANI

D. Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Honourable ITAT was right in law in upholding the invocation of section 153C of IT Act though the notice under section 153C has been issued without proper application of mind? I. Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Honourable ITAT was right

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

Bench: S.SUJATHA,RAVI V HOSMANI

D. Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Honourable ITAT was right in law in upholding the invocation of section 153C of IT Act though the notice under section 153C has been issued without proper application of mind? I. Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Honourable ITAT was right

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

Bench: S.SUJATHA,RAVI V HOSMANI

D. Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Honourable ITAT was right in law in upholding the invocation of section 153C of IT Act though the notice under section 153C has been issued without proper application of mind? I. Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Honourable ITAT was right

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

Bench: S.SUJATHA,RAVI V HOSMANI

D. Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Honourable ITAT was right in law in upholding the invocation of section 153C of IT Act though the notice under section 153C has been issued without proper application of mind? I. Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Honourable ITAT was right

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

Bench: S.SUJATHA,RAVI V HOSMANI

D. Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Honourable ITAT was right in law in upholding the invocation of section 153C of IT Act though the notice under section 153C has been issued without proper application of mind? I. Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Honourable ITAT was right

THE PR. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX vs. M/S HASSAN HAJEE & CO.

Appeals are allowed in part

Bench: S.SUJATHA,RAVI V HOSMANI

1. Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal is right in law in deleting the disallowance made by the assessing officer on account of speed money claimed as labour charges in the books of accounts? 2. Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal is right

THE PR. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX vs. M/S HASSAN HAJEE & CO.

Appeals are allowed in part

Bench: S.SUJATHA,RAVI V HOSMANI

1. Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal is right in law in deleting the disallowance made by the assessing officer on account of speed money claimed as labour charges in the books of accounts? 2. Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal is right

THE PR COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX vs. M/S HASSAN HAJEE & CO

Appeals are allowed in part

Bench: S.SUJATHA,RAVI V HOSMANI

1. Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal is right in law in deleting the disallowance made by the assessing officer on account of speed money claimed as labour charges in the books of accounts? 2. Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal is right

THE PR COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX vs. M/S HASSAN HAJEE & CO

Appeals are allowed in part

Bench: S.SUJATHA,RAVI V HOSMANI

1. Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal is right in law in deleting the disallowance made by the assessing officer on account of speed money claimed as labour charges in the books of accounts? 2. Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal is right