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

156/-. An order of rectification was passed on 13.07.2010 by which refund of a sum of Rs.10,55,000/- was granted. Thereafter, a search and seizure operation under Section 132 of the Act was initiated on 11.10.2012 and a notice under Section 153A of the Act was issued on 4 17.02.2014. The appellant filed a letter requesting to treat

M/S TELERADIOLOGY SOLUTIONS PVT LTD vs. DY.COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX

Bench: The Hon’Ble Mr.Justice Aravind Kumar

disallowed in the re-assessment proceedings framed. Consequently, demand notice came to be issued under Section 156 of the Act on 20.03.2014 (Annexure

M/S TELERADIOLOGY SOLUTIONS PVT LTD vs. DY.COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX

Bench: The Hon’Ble Mr.Justice Aravind Kumar

disallowed in the re-assessment proceedings framed. Consequently, demand notice came to be issued under Section 156 of the Act on 19.03.2014 (Annexure

M/S TELERADIOLOGY SOLUTIONS PVT LTD vs. DY.COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX

Bench: The Hon’Ble Mr.Justice Aravind Kumar

156 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (‘Act’ for short) during pendency of the appeal before third respondent. 3. Petitioner is carrying on the profession of providing services of medial transcription namely, analyzing transmission received of radiological patients images such as X-rays, CTs and MRIs by providing reports through the help of MRI radiologist, neuro- radiologist, pediatric radiologist

UNIVERSAL CREDIT SOUHARDHA SAHAKARI NIYAMITHA vs. GOVERNMENT OF INDIA

Bench: The Hon'Ble Mr.Justice S. Sunil Dutt Yadav

Section 156 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (Annexure-F) and also the notice dt. 13.02.2020 (Annexure-J) issued by the respondent No.3 pending disposal of the appeal before the 2nd respondent. This Writ Petition coming on for preliminary hearing this day, the Court made the following: ORDER The petitioner is a credit Co-operative Society registered under the provisions

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

In the result, the appeals are partly allowed

Bench: B.MANOHAR,DILIP B.BHOSALE

156/- spent on modification of building, a sum of Rs.3,60,694/- spent on corporate office repairs and Rs.21,485/-spent on purchase of paintings is a revenue expenditure and no depreciation is allowable over the same contrary to the judgment of the Apex Court in 49 ITR 160? A-6. Whether the Tribunal was correct in holding that

M/S. D.K. DISTRICT WOMENS CO-OPERATIVE BANK LTD vs. THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPELS)

Bench: The Hon’Ble Mr.Justice Aravind Kumar

disallowance made thereunder or additions made inasmuch as, it is in the domain of the appellate authority to examine the said issue. Same is left at it to be examined by the CIT (Appeals) in view of the fact that appeal has been filed and same is pending before first respondent for adjudication. Petitioner-assessee made an application for stay

THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX GULBARGA vs. M/S MANJUNATHA COTTON AND GINNING FACTORY

The appeals are dismissed

Bench: ARAVIND KUMAR,N.KUMAR

disallowed in computing the total income or loss of an assessee in any order of assessment or reassessment and the said order contains a direction for initiation of penalty proceedings under clause (c) of sub-Section (1), such an order of assessment or reassessment shall be deemed to constitute satisfaction of the Assessing Officer for initiation of the penalty proceedings

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

RAHIM SAIB HIRIYUR HYDER ALI vs. NATIONAL FACELESS ASSESSMENT CENTRE

In the result, I pass the following:

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

section 14(3) rws 254 rws 144B of the Income Tax Act, 1961 dated 26.09.2021 bearing DIN No.ITBA/AAST/S/143(3) /2021-22/1035906288(1) issued by the Respondent No.1 for the AY 2010-11 herein referred as Annexure-A1. b. Issue a writ of Certiorari and direction in the nature of a writ of certiorari quashing Notice of demand issued u/s 156

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

156 ITR page 585 at page 597 and it is submitted based on this judgment of the Supreme Court that while taxing statute has to be strictly construed but reasonable construction is not excluded and for that purposes that 31 marginal notes and heading will be relevant and assumes importance etc. 40. It is also submitted that if as mentioned

RNS INFRASTRUCTURE LIMITED vs. INCOME TAX SETTLEMENT COMMISSIONER

In the result, writ petitions are allowed

Bench: The Hon’Ble Mr. Justice L. Narayana Swamy Writ Petition Nos.46275-46289 Of 2016 (T-It)

156 OF THE ACT BY R-3 DATED 20.06.2016 IN RESPECT OF ASSESSMENT YEARS 2006-07 TO 2011-12 AT ANNEX-A10 TO A15; QUASH ALL CONSEQUENTIAL PROCEEDINGS INITIATED BY THE R-2 AND 3 IN RELATION TO RECOVERY OF AMOUNT, TREATING THE PETITIONER AS WILLFUL DEFAULTER AND INITIATION OF PROSECUTION PROCEEDINGS ETC., THESE PETITIONS HAVING BEEN HEARD AND RESERVED