THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX vs. M/S RAJMAHAL SILKS

The appeal is disposed of

Bench: ALOK ARADHE,H.T. NARENDRA PRASAD

disallowance if any under the provisions of Section 40A(3) of the Act shall be restricted to an extent of 20% of the amount expended in excess of Rs.20,000/-. 6. It is also argued that existence of the transporters has been proved, as they are assessed to income tax in their respective jurisdictions. It is also pointed that

THE PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER vs. M/S OBULAPURAM MINING

Bench: K.SOMASHEKAR,UMESH M ADIGA

3), Bengaluru. 11. Learned standing counsel Sri.Y.V.Raviraj for the appellants/revenue contends that with regard to the issue of transfer pricing adjustment, the Tribunal has grossly erred in not appreciating the categorical finding of facts made out by the revenue authorities that M/s. GLAT International P. Ltd., is an 'associated enterprise' of the assessee company. The Tribunal has erred

THE PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER vs. M/S OBULAPURAM MINING

Bench: K.SOMASHEKAR,UMESH M ADIGA

Section 143(3) of the I.T. Act to pass assessment orders. Part of the transportation expenses for transporting 23,61,083 metric tons at a cost of Rs.168,,69,93,902/- is disallowed. The jurisdictional error committed is the assessing officer’s jurisdiction is Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, 35 Central Circle-1(3), Bengaluru, whereas the jurisdictional assessing officer

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

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

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

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

COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-III vs. M/S. ONMOBILE GLOBAL LTD

In the result, the matter is remitted to the Tribunal to

Bench: ALOK ARADHE,R. NATARAJ

131/- and Rs.24,08,000/- as revenue expenditure whereas the same have been incurred for enduring benefit to the business and should 4 be treated only as capital expenditure as rightly held by first appellate authority? 5. Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was justified in law in holding that the assessee

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

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 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