THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX vs. M/S BPL SANYO FINANCE LTD

In the result, the appeal filed by the revenue is

Bench: The Tribunal Was Arising From The Order Dated 4Th June 2004 Passed By The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) Bangalore (For Short “The

disallowed as withdrawn by the assessee. 9. It would be, however, necessary to see what did the assessee in the letter dated 8th March, 2002, addressed to the AO, had stated. By this letter, at the outset, the assessee withdrew their claim of 100% depreciation and requested not to levy penalty in view of 10 the peculiar facts

M/S BEST TRADING & AGENCIES LTD vs. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX

In the result, the orders passed by the

Bench: ALOK ARADHE,H.T. NARENDRA PRASAD

138/- and subsequently, filed a revised return of income on 30.11.2006 declaring a long term capital loss of Rs.11,67,36,836/- and total income of Rs.2,97,239/- being income from other sources. The return of income was selected for scrutiny and a notice under Section 143(2) of the Act was issued to the assessee. 5. The Assessing

M/S BEST TRADING & AGENCIES LTD vs. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX

In the result, the orders passed by the

Bench: ALOK ARADHE,H.T. NARENDRA PRASAD

138/- and subsequently, filed a revised return of income on 30.11.2006 declaring a long term capital loss of Rs.11,67,36,836/- and total income of Rs.2,97,239/- being income from other sources. The return of income was selected for scrutiny and a notice under Section 143(2) of the Act was issued to the assessee. 5. The Assessing

THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX vs. M/S ALLOY STEELS,

Accordingly, the appeal filed by the appellant is allowed

Bench: N.K.PATIL,B.MANOHAR

disallowed. 3. The aforesaid four points having not been looked into nor considered or appreciated by the Assessing Officer, the Commissioner of Income Tax in order to safeguard the interest of both the Revenue as well as the Assessee has disposed of the case with a direction to the Assessing Authority to reconsider the matter in the light

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

138 STC 235, the Judgment of the Division Bench of this Court is relied upon wherein it has been held that the fiction created in proviso to Section 5(4) of the Act cannot be extended to Section 6 of the Act, for levy of purchase tax and this argument and this ratio is 26 called in aid to submit

THE PR. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (4) vs. M/S CHAMUNDI WINERY AND DISTILLERY

Bench: S.SUJATHA,VINEET KOTHARI

138-142 24 Smt. Savita Mohan Nagpal Vs. CIT [1985] 154 ITR 449 (Raj) 143-149 25 T.Jayachandran Vs. DCIT 263 CTR 629 (Mad) 150-158 26 CIT Vs. Madras Race Club [1996] 219 ITR 39 (Mad) 159-168 27 CIT Vs. Pandavapura Sahakara Sakkare Kharkane Ltd 174 ITR 475 (Kar) 169-171 33 CIT Vs. Crawford Bayley

PR. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX vs. M/S CHAMUNDI WINERY AND DISTILLERY

Bench: S.SUJATHA,VINEET KOTHARI

138-142 24 Smt. Savita Mohan Nagpal Vs. CIT [1985] 154 ITR 449 (Raj) 143-149 25 T.Jayachandran Vs. DCIT 263 CTR 629 (Mad) 150-158 26 CIT Vs. Madras Race Club [1996] 219 ITR 39 (Mad) 159-168 27 CIT Vs. Pandavapura Sahakara Sakkare Kharkane Ltd 174 ITR 475 (Kar) 169-171 33 CIT Vs. Crawford Bayley

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 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

SMT JAMUNA VERNEKAR vs. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX

In the result, the impugned order of the tribunal dated

Bench: ALOK ARADHE,R. NATARAJ

Section 2(22)(e) of the Act. Thus, the appeal preferred by the assessee was allowed. Being aggrieved by the aforesaid order of the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), the revenue filed an appeal before the Tribunal. The Tribunal, by an order dated 31.08.2012, allowed the appeal preferred 6 the revenue. In the aforesaid factual background, the appeal has been

M/S. RAO COMPUTERS CONSULTANTS PVT LTD vs. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX

In the result, the appeal is allowed

Bench: ALOK ARADHE,HEMANT CHANDANGOUDAR

Section 260A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as the Act for short) has been preferred by the assesse against the order dated 24.03.2017 passed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (hereinafter referred to as 'the tribunal' for short). The subject matter of the appeal pertains to the Assessment year 2010-11. The appeal was admitted

M/S. RAO COMPUTER CONSULTANTS PVT LTD vs. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX

In the result, the appeal is allowed

Bench: ALOK ARADHE,HEMANT CHANDANGOUDAR

Section 260A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as the Act for short) has been preferred by the assesse against the order dated 24.03.2017 passed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (hereinafter referred to as 'the tribunal' for short). The subject matter of the appeal pertains to the Assessment year 2009-10. The appeal was admitted

M/S. RAO COMPUTER CONSULTANTS PVT LTD vs. THE JOINT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (OSD)

In the result, the appeal is allowed

Bench: ALOK ARADHE,HEMANT CHANDANGOUDAR

Section 260A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as the Act for short) has been preferred by the assessee against the order dated 13.04.2017 passed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (hereinafter referred to as 'the tribunal' for short). The subject matter of the appeal pertains to the Assessment year 2012-13. The appeal was admitted

M/S. RAO COMPUTERS CONSULTANTS PVT LTD vs. THE JOINT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, (OSD)

In the result, the appeal is allowed

Bench: ALOK ARADHE,HEMANT CHANDANGOUDAR

Section 260A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as the Act for short) has been preferred by the assessee against the order dated 13.04.2017. The subject matter of the appeal pertains to the Assessment year 2011-12. The appeal was admitted by a bench of this Court on the following substantial questions of law: " (1) Whether