COFFEEDAY GLOBAL LTD. vs. ADDITIONAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX

In the result, the orders dated 21

Bench: ALOK ARADHE,ASHOK S.KINAGI

disallowed. It is also argued that the tribunal while passing the order dated 06.12.2017 has rectified the errors, which were apparent on the record. In support of aforesaid submissions, reliance has been placed on decisions in 'CIT VS. RELIANCE INDUSTRIES LTD.', (2019) 102 TAXMANN.COM 52(SC), 'CIT VS. 15 RELIANCE UTILITIES & POWER LTD', (2009) 178 TAXMAN 135 (BOMBAY

M/S KHODAY INDIA LTD vs. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX

In the result, the orders passed by the Assessing

Bench: ALOK ARADHE,HEMANT CHANDANGOUDAR

178 TAXMAN 135 (BOM.) and 'CIT VS. HDFC BANK LTD.', (2014) 49 TAXMANN.COM 355 (BOM.). 5. On the other hand, learned counsel for the revenue submitted that condition for recording satisfaction as prescribed under Section 14A of the Act is not attracted to the facts of the case as there is no suo motu disallowance

THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX vs. M/S CANARA BANK

Bench: P.S.DINESH KUMAR,T.G. SHIVASHANKARE GOWDA

section 14A of the Act by even when the conditions for invoking said provisions as fully satisfied in the case of the assessee? 6. Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal is right in law in setting aside disallowances on account of AFS and HFT category of investments by relying upon the decisions which

PR COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX vs. M/S UNITED SPIRITS LTD

Bench: S.SUJATHA,RAVI V HOSMANI

disallowed the same holding that the assessee had not established the nexus for utilization of the funds raised in FNCR are used for the business purposes. It was assumed by the Assessing Officer that the loan had been used for certain investments into share capital of various companies. The same has been confirmed by the CIT - 10 - (A). The Tribunal

PR COMMISSIONER OF vs. M/S SYNGENE

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

Bench: ALOK ARADHE,H.T. NARENDRA PRASAD

disallowed the deduction claimed by the assessee under Section 10B of the Act to the tune of Rs.21,31,59,892/- and added it to the income of the assessee. 5 4. The assessee thereupon approached the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) who by an order dated 22.06.2012 inter alia held that Assessing Officer as unable to counter the claim

THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, vs. M/S BAHUBALI NEMINATH MUTTIN,

The appeals are dismissed

Bench: ANAND BYRAREDDY,RAGHVENDRA S.CHAUHAN

Disallowance under Section 40A (3) of the I.T. Act being undisclosed income Rs.24,216/- (v) Gross profit on suppressed sales being undisclosed income at Rs.19,45,509/- (vi) Addition on account of cessation of liability under Section 41 (1) of the I.T. Act at Rs.2,37,818/-. 3. The assessee had filed an appeal before the Commissioner of Income

M/S. UKN PROPERTIES PRIVATE LIMITED vs. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX

The appeal is disposed of

Bench: ALOK ARADHE(ACJ),HEMANT CHANDANGOUDAR

Section 260A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as the Act for short) has been preferred by the assessee against the order dated 19.10.2016 passed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal. The subject matter of the appeal pertains to the Assessment years 2008-09 and 2009-10. The appeal was admitted by a bench of this Court

THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX vs. M/S CANARA BANK

Bench: ALOK ARADHE,H.T. NARENDRA PRASAD

disallow the claim of deduction? 2. Facts giving rise to filing of this appeal briefly stated are that the assessee is a banking company. The assessee filed return of income for Assessment Year 2007-08 on 29.10.2007 declaring total income of Rs.593,48,70,178/-. The return was processed under Section

THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX vs. M/S CANARA BANK

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

Bench: ALOK ARADHE,H.T. NARENDRA PRASAD

disallowed the depreciation claimed by the assessee in respect of assets leased to M/s Rajender Steels Ltd., M/s Kedia Mills and Distilleries Ltd. And M/s Kedia Castle Dellon Industries Ltd. The 5 assessee thereupon filed appeals before the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) who by an order dated 01.06.2011 inter alia held that the assessee had discharged the onus

THE COMMISSINER OF INCOME -TAX, vs. M/S CANARA BANK

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

Bench: ALOK ARADHE,H.T. NARENDRA PRASAD

disallowed the depreciation claimed by the assessee in respect of assets leased to M/s Rajender Steels Ltd., M/s Kedia Mills and Distilleries Ltd. And M/s Kedia Castle Dellon Industries Ltd. The assessee thereupon filed appeal before the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) who by an order dated 02.06.2011 inter alia held that the assessee had discharged the onus to prove

THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX vs. M/S MAA COMMUNICATION BOZELL LTD

The appeal is allowed

Bench: B.MANOHAR,DILIP B.BHOSALE

Section 143(1) of the Act. The Assessing Authority without taking into consideration the documents produced by the assessee solely on the basis of the statement recorded behind the back of the assessee, without giving opportunity to cross-examine those persons, passed the reassessment order and denied 100% depreciation. The Appellate Authority after considering the matter in detail, and also

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 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

COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX vs. M/S.WINTAC LTD.,

The appeal is allowed in part

Bench: B.MANOHAR,DILIP B.BHOSALE

disallowed both the claims of the assessee for short term and long term capital loss. The Appellate Authority directed the Assessing Officer to rework the claim made by the assessee taking the value of each share at Rs.3.11/- per share. The Appellate Tribunal on examining the matter allowed the claim of the assessee. The reasons assigned in paragraph 6.4 reads

COMMISISONER OF INCOME TAX vs. OHIO UNIVERSITY CHRIST COLLEGE

Bench: S.SUJATHA,VINEET KOTHARI

disallowance of accumulation of income made by the assessing authority by holding that the decision of this Hon’ble Court in case of DIT(E) v/s. Envisions in ITA No. 752/2009 dated 13/3/2015 when the assessing authority rightly rejected the claim by holding that the assessee has not stated specific reasons for accumulation ?” 3. In our opinion, none