THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX vs. TEXAS INSTRUMENTS INDIA PVT LTD

The appeals are dismissed

Bench: SATISH CHANDRA SHARMA,SURAJ GOVINDARAJ

1. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal is right in law in setting aside the disallowance of Rs.7,57,22,069 made under section 80JJAA of the Act by holding that the employees in software industry are covered by definition of ‘Workman’ in Explanation (iii) to section 80JJAA of the Act read with

THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX vs. M/S RAJMAHAL SILKS

The appeal is disposed of

Bench: ALOK ARADHE,H.T. NARENDRA PRASAD

disallowance of Rs.1,82,83,210/- under Section 40(a)(ia) of the Act is contrary to law and is covered against the revenue by decision of the Supreme Court in CIT VS. CALCUTTA EXPORT COMPANY supra. It also pointed out that the assessee had produced all details and documents to demonstrate the incurrence and allowability of expenditure under Section

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

DELL INDIA PVT LTD vs. THE JOINT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX

Bench: The Hon’Ble Mr.Justice Aravind Kumar

disallowance came to be made by the Assessing Officer on account of revenue itself recognizing the accounting policy followed by petitioner and same came to be accepted. He would also submit that subsequently for the assessment year 2010-11 Assessing officer took a different view and has held that there was no concept of deferred revenue under

M/S GRANITE MART LIMITED vs. THE INCOME-TAX OFFICER

In the result the order passed by the

Bench: ALOK ARADHE,M.NAGAPRASANNA

1) of the Act were issued to the appellant. The Assessing Officer allowed the deduction under Section 10B of the Act only to the extent of direct export made by the appellant and disallowed the claim for deduction under Section 10B of the Act in respect of the sales made through third parties i.e., export houses and inter unit transfers

THE PR. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX vs. M/S FIBRES AND FABRICS INTERNATIONAL PVT. LTD.,

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

Bench: ALOK ARADHE,HEMANT CHANDANGOUDAR

1), BENGALURU. (iii) PASS SUCH OTHER SUITABLE ORDERS AS THIS HON'BLE COURT DEEMS FIT TO GRANT IN THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE AND EQUITY. THIS I.T.A. COMING ON FOR FINAL HEARING, THIS DAY, ALOK ARADHE J., DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: JUDGMENT This appeal under Section 260A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter

THE PR COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX vs. M/S VSL MINING COMPANY PVT LTD

Appeal is dismissed as being

Bench: S.G.PANDIT,C.M. POONACHA

1. “Whether on the facts and circumstances of the case, it is submitted that the Tribunal erred in holding that assessee-company is entitled for deduction under section 10B of the Act without appreciating that the assessee-company has not exported Article to satisfy the conditions set out in section 10B of the Act? 2. Whether on the facts

THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX vs. M/S ALLOY STEELS,

Accordingly, the appeal filed by the appellant is allowed

Bench: N.K.PATIL,B.MANOHAR

161 ITR 99? 2. The brief facts of the case are that the respondent/assessee had filed return of income on 4 30.10.2006 which was processed under Section 143 (1) on 20.03.2007. As the case fell under the guidelines of compulsory scrutiny as per the Board’s action plan, the case was picked up for scrutiny by way of issue

M/S ACE DESIGNERS LIMITED vs. THE ADDITIONAL COMMISSIONER OF

In the result, the order of the Tribunal dated

Bench: ALOK ARADHE,H.T. NARENDRA PRASAD

Section 37(1) of the Act. It is further submitted that the authorities failed to appreciate that expenditure incurred was in the nature of business activity and the actual business carried on by the assessee and the assessee had set up its WOS in USA only for the purposes of marketing, business, promotion and sales of computerized numerically controlled machines