M/S HMA DATA SYSTEM P LTD., vs. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX

Bench: ARAVIND KUMAR,MOHAN M. SHANTANAGOUDAR

Section 143(3) by order dated 22.12.2006, whereunder disallowances to the tune of `2,67,85,610/- was made. During the previous year relevant to the assessment year, assessee sold 50,000 shares of M/s.Diebold HMA Pvt. Ltd., said to have been acquired by it during the year 1992-93 for a total consideration

THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX vs. M/S. TRIDENT MINERALS (100% EOU)

The appeal is dismissed

Bench: H.T.NARENDRA PRASAD,B.VEERAPPA

disallowance of excess profits amounting to Rs.4,76,52,385/- due to transactions with sister concerns from computation of the eligible deduction under Section 10B of the Act, was withdrawn by the assessee, when actually it was not so. 2. It is the case of the assessee that they carry business of production, manufacture and export of iron

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

The appeals stand disposed of, accordingly

Bench: N.KUMAR,B.SREENIVASE GOWDA

Section 154. Notice u/s 142(1) was issued on 21.12.2001 with a questionnaire. Further notices u/s 142 (1) were issued on various dates beginning from 7.10.2003 to 8.3.2004. The assessee- company filed written replies along with enclosures from time to time. The return furnished on 30.10.2001 was processed u/s 143(3) of the I.T.Act on 24.03.2004 and order was passed

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

The appeals stand disposed of, accordingly

Bench: N.KUMAR,B.SREENIVASE GOWDA

Section 154. Notice u/s 142(1) was issued on 21.12.2001 with a questionnaire. Further notices u/s 142 (1) were issued on various dates beginning from 7.10.2003 to 8.3.2004. The assessee- company filed written replies along with enclosures from time to time. The return furnished on 30.10.2001 was processed u/s 143(3) of the I.T.Act on 24.03.2004 and order was passed

COMMISISONER OF INCOME TAX vs. OHIO UNIVERSITY CHRIST COLLEGE

Bench: S.SUJATHA,VINEET KOTHARI

section 11(1)(a).” 19. In so far as question No.3 quoted above is concerned, the finding of the Tribunal are quoted below for ready reference : “7.5.1 We have heard the rival contentions and perused and carefully considered the material on record, including the judicial pronouncements cited. The purposes mentioned by the assessee trust in Form No.10 were

THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX vs. M/S GE MEDICAL SYSTEMS (I) (P) LTD

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

Bench: ALOK ARADHE,H.T. NARENDRA PRASAD

disallowed the entire compensation paid towards the scheme of Rs.7,41,13,368/- as the same was not incurred wholly and exclusively for the purpose of business of the assessee. 3. The assessee thereupon filed an appeal before the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) who by an order dated 18.02.2010 allowed the appeal preferred by the assessee and held that