THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-III vs. SMT.KAMAKSHI DEVI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is

Bench: S.SUJATHA,VINEET KOTHARI

Section 143(1) of the Act. The Assessing Officer by an order dated 28.02.2006 along with other disallowances, disallowed the amount of bid loss claimed in the memo of income and an amount of Rs.7,20,32,155

THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX vs. M/S GARNIWAL EXPORTS (P) LTD

Appeal is allowed

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

Section 80HHC of the Act. The Assessing Officer disallowed the deduction claimed in respect of the price of Rs.17,78,155

COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-III vs. M/S SHRIRAM CHITS (KAR) PVT LTD

In the result, the appeal is disposed of

Bench: ALOK ARADHE,H.T. NARENDRA PRASAD

Section 143(2) and 142(1) were issued to the assessee. The Assessing Officer by an order dated 24.12.2007 5 inter alia disallowed the claim of bid loss to the extent of Rs.7,41,35,744/- on the ground that the aforesaid claim pertains to beyond the relevant Previous Year and assessee is following hybrid system of accounting

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

Bench: S.SUJATHA,VINEET KOTHARI

SECTION 37 OF THE ACT. Page No 7 CIT Vs. Rajasthan State Government Sugar Mills Ltd 393 ITR 421 (Raj) 32-42 8 CIT Vs. G Balraj [2017] 390 ITR 50 (Kar) 43-47 10 CIT Vs. Chandulal Keshaval & Co., 38 ITR 601 (SC) 58-63 15 Sasoon J David

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

Bench: S.SUJATHA,VINEET KOTHARI

SECTION 37 OF THE ACT. Page No 7 CIT Vs. Rajasthan State Government Sugar Mills Ltd 393 ITR 421 (Raj) 32-42 8 CIT Vs. G Balraj [2017] 390 ITR 50 (Kar) 43-47 10 CIT Vs. Chandulal Keshaval & Co., 38 ITR 601 (SC) 58-63 15 Sasoon J David

M/S EMBASSY DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION vs. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER

The appeals are dismissed

Bench: B.MANOHAR,VINEET SARAN

disallowed the assessee’s claim of interest paid, on the ground that though the assessee availed loan from KSIIDC, the same was diverted to its sister concern, the amount received was not utilized for the business of the assessee and no income has been accrued to the assessee. The sister concern of the assessee has also not utilized the said

M/S. KARNATAKA INSTRADE CORPORATION LIMITED vs. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX

The appeal is allowed in part

Bench: B.MANOHAR,VINEET SARAN

disallowed all the expenditure including royalty except the expenses with regard to maintenance of Corporate Office. The agreement of sale executed by the assessee in favour of M/s.MCL has resulted in transfer in terms of Section 247(v) and resulted in slump sale. Since the assessee has already sold the property, the question of incurring expenditure does not arise

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

M/S KOTAK MAHINDRA BANK LIMITED vs. THE ADDITIONAL COMMISSIONER OF

In the result, appeal is disposed of

Bench: ALOK ARADHE,HEMANT CHANDANGOUDAR

Section 254 of the Act is well settled. An assessee can be permitted to raise the question before the tribunal for the first time so long as the relevant facts are on record. In the instant case, the ESOP expenditure of Rs.1,77,61,870/- was already debited to the profit and loss account of the assessee and the same