M/S WIPRO LIMITED vs. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX

The appeals stand disposed of, accordingly

Bench: N.KUMAR,B.SREENIVASE GOWDA

Section 154. Notice u/s 142(1) was issued on 21.12.2001 with a questionnaire. Further notices u/s 142 (1) were issued on various dates beginning from 7.10.2003 to 8.3.2004. The assessee- company filed written replies along with enclosures from time to time. The return furnished on 30.10.2001 was processed u/s 143(3) of the I.T.Act on 24.03.2004 and order was passed

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

Bench: K.SOMASHEKAR,UMESH M ADIGA

142 (1) which was issued on 21.12.2012 calling for the return of income for assessment year 2011-2012. In response to the aforesaid notice, respondent/ assessee filed a letter dated 28.12.2012, which was received on 01.01.2013, in which the assessee has stated that CBI has seized all the relevant material, including the books of accounts, during September, 2011. Therefore

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

Bench: K.SOMASHEKAR,UMESH M ADIGA

142 (1) which was issued on 21.12.2012 calling for the return of income for assessment year 2011-2012. In response to the aforesaid notice, respondent/ assessee filed a letter dated 28.12.2012, which was received on 01.01.2013, in which the assessee has stated that CBI has seized all the relevant material, including the books of accounts, during September, 2011. Therefore

M/S SAFINA HOTELS PRIVATE LIMITED vs. THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX

Appeal is allowed

Bench: S.SUJATHA,N.K.PATIL

142(1)/143(2) of the Income Tax Act, 1961”. The relevant portion which relates to Section 271(1)(c) of the Act has been deleted by the Assessing Officer which reads thus, “has concealed the particulars of his income or furnished inaccurate particulars of such income”. However the Assessing Officer though issued notice under Section 271(1

COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-III vs. M/S SYNDICATE BANK

The appeals are disposed of

Bench: ALOK ARADHE,RAVI V HOSMANI

142(1) of the Act were issued to the Assessee an order under Section 143(3) of the Act was passed on 28.02.2005 disallowing

M/S TEJAS NETWORKS LIMITED vs. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX

In the result, I proceed to pass the following:

Bench: The Hon’Ble Mr.Justice Aravind Kumar

disallow the claim made by an assessee under Section 35(2AB) which does not include any expenditure incurred in the acquisition of rights, in, or arising out of scientific research would be within the domain of the jurisdictional assessing Officer. In other words, the issue of jurisdiction of assessing officer to examine such claim, is an issue which requires

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

disallowed as it was not meant for management of construction, but on other expenses, such as advertisement, sales promotion etc. Therefore, the income had to be assessed under the head income from other sources. The Tribunal held that the income had to be assessed as business income and the assessee could not have received a sum of Rs.78.25 lakh without

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

disallowed as it was not meant for management of construction, but on other expenses, such as advertisement, sales promotion etc. Therefore, the income had to be assessed under the head income from other sources. The Tribunal held that the income had to be assessed as business income and the assessee could not have received a sum of Rs.78.25 lakh without

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

disallowed as it was not meant for management of construction, but on other expenses, such as advertisement, sales promotion etc. Therefore, the income had to be assessed under the head income from other sources. The Tribunal held that the income had to be assessed as business income and the assessee could not have received a sum of Rs.78.25 lakh without

M/S PADMINI PRODUCTS (P) LTD., vs. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX

In the result, the aforesaid

Bench: ALOK ARADHE,H.T. NARENDRA PRASAD

142(1) of the Act was issued to the assessee. The Assessing Officer by an order dated 31.12.2010 inter alia held that intangible assets valued in the hands of the company at the time of succession, were valued as per assessee’s 6 own valuation and not for any actual consideration. It was further held that assessee neither purchased / acquired

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

The appeals stand dismissed

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

1)(c) of the Act disallows application of income to concerns referred to in sub-section (3) only where such application results in a direct or indirect benefit to the - 12 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:10978-DB ITA No. 142

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

Section 142(1) of the Act were issued. The Assessing Officer by an order dated 27.03.2013 concluded the assessment by making certain additions and disallowed

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

Section 142(1) of the Act were issued. The Assessing Officer by an order dated 27.03.2013 concluded the assessment by making certain additions and disallowed

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

Section 142(1) of the Act were issued. The Assessing Officer by an order dated 27.03.2013 concluded the assessment by making certain additions and disallowed

MANGALORE REFINERY AND PETROCHEMICALS LTD vs. PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX

In the result, I pass the following:-

Bench: The Hon'Ble Mr.Justice S.R.Krishna Kumar

1 on 02.04.2020 before the prescribed authority. Subsequent to filing of declaration in Form -1 by the Petitioner, the 1st respondent issued the impugned Certificates dated 16.10.2020 and 06.01.2021 respectively in Form 3 by accepting the declaration of the Petitioner only partially. Against the said Certificates, which accepted the claim / declaration of the petitioner only partially, petitioner filed rectification applications

MANGALORE REFINERY AND PETROCHEMICALS LTD vs. PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX

In the result, I pass the following:-

Bench: The Hon'Ble Mr.Justice S.R.Krishna Kumar

1 on 02.04.2020 before the prescribed authority. Subsequent to filing of declaration in Form -1 by the Petitioner, the 1st respondent issued the impugned Certificates dated 16.10.2020 and 06.01.2021 respectively in Form 3 by accepting the declaration of the Petitioner only partially. Against the said Certificates, which accepted the claim / declaration of the petitioner only partially, petitioner filed rectification applications

COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, vs. SHREE RENUKA SUGARS LTD.,

The Appeals are allowed

Bench: K.BHAKTHAVATSALA,B.SREENIVASE GOWDA

Sections 148 and 142(1) of the Income Tax Act were issued to the assessee to re-work the depreciation over the years and the opening of Written Down Value of the assets of the co-generation plant. After affording 4 an opportunity to the assessee, assessment orders dated 22.12.2008 and 17.12.2008 were passed disallowing

GMR INFRASTRUCTURE LIMITED vs. THE DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX

In the result, we do not find any merit in the appeal

Bench: ALOK ARADHE,HEMANT CHANDANGOUDAR

142(1) of the Act was issued on 16.02.2015 by which the assessee was required to furnish various details. The assessee filed detailed reply to the notices on 25.02.2015 and 03.03.2015. The Assessing Officer thereafter passed an order on 19.03.2015 by which following disallowances were made by the Assessing Officer: (i) Additional disallowance made under Section