MADHU SOUHARDA PATHINA SAHAKARI NIYAMITHA vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER

The appeal stands dismissed

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

disallowance of deduction under Section 80P of the Act, on the ground of non-filing of return of income, can be made only by invoking Section 80AC of the Act. However, Section 80AC has been made applicable to Section 80P of the Act by the Finance Act, 2018 with effect from 01.04.2018, i.e., from the Assessment Year 2018–19. Since

THE PR. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX vs. M/S. TE CONNECTIVITY INDIA PVT. LTD.,

Accordingly dispose of the appeal as allowed

Bench: ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE,S RACHAIAH

139 (Del)]. 8. According to him, the order passed by the PCIT under Section 263 does not dispute the fact that the amount of Rs.36,34,10,000/- represents discounts. In that view of the matter, the only plausible view is that Section 194H does not stand attracted and therefore the conclusion that there ought to be a disallowance under

PR.COMMISSIONER OF INCOMETAX-2 vs. M/S.EYGBS (INDIA) PVT LTD

Bench: CHIEF JUSTICE,C M JOSHI

5 and 6 – relate to the division of disallowance under Section 14A of the Act. 16. As noted above, the AO had denied the exemption under Section 10-AA of the Act on the ground that the same was occasioned by TP adjustment. The said disallowance was founded on the proviso to Section

THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX vs. M/S LUWA INDIA PVT LTD

Bench: RAVI MALIMATH,N.KUMAR

139, such sum shall be allowed as a deduction in computing the income of the previous year in which such tax has been paid. Provided further that where an assessee fails to deduct the whole or any part of the tax in accordance with the provisions of Chapter XVII-B on any such sum but is not deemed

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 139

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 139

THE PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX vs. M/S NIRANI SUGARS LTD.,

In the result, the impugned orders passed by

Bench: ALOK ARADHE,P.G.M.PATIL

disallowance of depreciation. The assessee thereupon approached the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal. The Tribunal, by an order dated 19.02.2015 has allowed the appeal preferred by the assessee and set aside the order of the Commission of Income Tax (Appeals). The Assessing Officer was further directed to allow depreciation as per Appendix I at the higher rates. The Tribunal, inter alia

THE PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX vs. M/S NIRANI SUGARS LTD.,

In the result, the impugned orders passed by

Bench: ALOK ARADHE,P.G.M.PATIL

disallowance of depreciation. The assessee thereupon approached the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal. The Tribunal, by an order dated 19.02.2015 has allowed the appeal preferred by the assessee and set aside the order of the Commission of Income Tax (Appeals). The Assessing Officer was further directed to allow depreciation as per Appendix I at the higher rates. The Tribunal, inter alia

SHRI NARAYAN RAO HEBRI vs. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX

The appeal stands dismissed

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

5) of Section 139 enables the assessee to revise the return within the prescribed time. If the case of the assessee is that the additional income was wrongly offered, though otherwise not taxable, and that such offering was based solely on an admission allegedly obtained under coercion during - 22 - ITA No. 166 of 2025 the course of a survey

THE PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER vs. M/S OBULAPURAM MINING

Bench: K.SOMASHEKAR,UMESH M ADIGA

Disallowance of Expenses under Explanation to section 37(1) and in respect of third issue i.e., addition made on account of sale of Land, the ITAT set-aside the order of CIT (A) on that issue and restored the matter to A.O. for a fresh decision with the same directions as were given by the tribunal

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

5) years, commencing from the date provided in Clause 1 (b) below, at a monthly rent at the rate of Rs. 22/- (Rupees Twenty Two only) per sq. ft. (of which 18% shall be towards Electro Mechanical charges throughout the tenure of the lease) calculated for the first 3 years, and Rs. 25.30 per sq., ft. calculated

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

5) years, commencing from the date provided in Clause 1 (b) below, at a monthly rent at the rate of Rs. 22/- (Rupees Twenty Two only) per sq. ft. (of which 18% shall be towards Electro Mechanical charges throughout the tenure of the lease) calculated for the first 3 years, and Rs. 25.30 per sq., ft. calculated

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

5) years, commencing from the date provided in Clause 1 (b) below, at a monthly rent at the rate of Rs. 22/- (Rupees Twenty Two only) per sq. ft. (of which 18% shall be towards Electro Mechanical charges throughout the tenure of the lease) calculated for the first 3 years, and Rs. 25.30 per sq., ft. calculated

PR. COMMISSIONER OF vs. M/S TALLY SOLUTIONS PVT LTD.,

In the result, the appeals fail and are hereby

Bench: ALOK ARADHE,H.T. NARENDRA PRASAD

5. Thereupon the assessee filed an appeal before the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) who by an order dated 20.08.2014 allowed the claim of the assessee and held that there being an irrevocable and unconditional sale of Intellectual Property and transfer being absolute, it was an outright purchase of capital asset and therefore, Section

PR COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-7 vs. M/S TALLY SOLUTIONS PVT LTD

In the result, the appeals fail and are hereby

Bench: ALOK ARADHE,H.T. NARENDRA PRASAD

5. Thereupon the assessee filed an appeal before the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) who by an order dated 20.08.2014 allowed the claim of the assessee and held that there being an irrevocable and unconditional sale of Intellectual Property and transfer being absolute, it was an outright purchase of capital asset and therefore, Section

PR COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-7 vs. M/S TALLY SOLUTIONS PVT LTD

In the result, the appeals fail and are hereby

Bench: ALOK ARADHE,H.T. NARENDRA PRASAD

5. Thereupon the assessee filed an appeal before the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) who by an order dated 20.08.2014 allowed the claim of the assessee and held that there being an irrevocable and unconditional sale of Intellectual Property and transfer being absolute, it was an outright purchase of capital asset and therefore, Section

COMMISSIONER OF INCOME vs. SRI SCORPIO ENGINEERING

Bench: B.V.NAGARATHNA,JAYANT PATEL

disallowance would be made if after deduction of tax during the previous 7 year, the same has been paid on or before the due date of filing of return of income as specified in sub-section (1) of Section 139. 1’his has been given retrospective effect from 1st April 2010. 16.5:Of course. the Legislature has given the effect

PR COMMISSIONER OF vs. M/S GMR HYDERABAD

Appeals stand disposed of accordingly

Bench: S.SUJATHA,RAVI V HOSMANI

disallowance made under Section 40[a][ia] for non deduction of TDS on payments made to Director’s towards sitting fees by holding that - 16 - the amendment will apply for A.Y.2014-15 onwards?” In ITA No.381/2018: “1. Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law the Tribunal was correct in law in holding that incriminating