THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX vs. M/S WIPRO LTD

The appeals stand disposed of, accordingly

Bench: N.KUMAR,B.SREENIVASE GOWDA

19. Aggrieved by the said order, the revenue preferred an appeal to the Tribunal. The Tribunal taking note of Section 90(1)(a) prior to its amendment held the word “paid” has been defined under Section 43(2) of the Act. The said definition is for the purpose of Section 28 to 41. But the said meaning of the word

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

The appeals stand disposed of, accordingly

Bench: N.KUMAR,B.SREENIVASE GOWDA

19. Aggrieved by the said order, the revenue preferred an appeal to the Tribunal. The Tribunal taking note of Section 90(1)(a) prior to its amendment held the word “paid” has been defined under Section 43(2) of the Act. The said definition is for the purpose of Section 28 to 41. But the said meaning of the word

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

Bench: S.SUJATHA,VINEET KOTHARI

19 CIT Vs. Harivallabhadas Kalidas & Co. 39 ITR 1 (SC) 111-115 28 CIT Vs. Virtual Soft Systems Ltd 404 ITR 409 (SC) 172-184 29 CIT Vs. Lakshmi Machine Works 290 ITR 667 (SC) 185-196 30 Miss Dhun Dadbhoy Kapadia Vs. CIT 63 ITR 651 (SC) 197-200 Date of Judgment 25-09-2018 I.T.A.No.155/2016 and connected

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

Bench: S.SUJATHA,VINEET KOTHARI

19 CIT Vs. Harivallabhadas Kalidas & Co. 39 ITR 1 (SC) 111-115 28 CIT Vs. Virtual Soft Systems Ltd 404 ITR 409 (SC) 172-184 29 CIT Vs. Lakshmi Machine Works 290 ITR 667 (SC) 185-196 30 Miss Dhun Dadbhoy Kapadia Vs. CIT 63 ITR 651 (SC) 197-200 Date of Judgment 25-09-2018 I.T.A.No.155/2016 and connected

M/S EMBASSY DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION vs. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER

The appeals are dismissed

Bench: B.MANOHAR,VINEET SARAN

155/- for the assessment year 2002-03. Being aggrieved by the same, the assessee preferred three appeals before the First Appellate Authority, challenging the three assessment orders on various grounds. The First Appellate Authority, after considering the matter in detail and taking into consideration the judgments of various High Courts, while partly allowing the appeals, denied the expenditure on interest