THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX vs. M/S. SYNDICATE BANK

The appeals are disposed of

Bench: ALOK ARADHE,RAVI V HOSMANI

disallowed? (ii) Whether the provisions of Section 14A of the Act read with Rule 8D of the Income Tax Rules should be made applicable to all pending matters as the same is clarifactory in nature in view of the consistent stands taken by the department? (iii) Whether the tribunal was correct in holding that the estimated expenditure cannot be treated

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

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

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

5 : under Section 10B of the Act is without appreciating the fact that the assessee had not fulfilled the conditions as specified in Section 10-B (2) (iii) of the Act. He would further contend that the Tribunal ought to have appreciated that the provisions of Section 10B(2)(iii) of the Act, provided that the undertaking is not formed

COMMISISONER OF INCOME TAX vs. OHIO UNIVERSITY CHRIST COLLEGE

Bench: S.SUJATHA,VINEET KOTHARI

5 years from the year of incurring of expenditure. The fact of amortization was not disputed by the Assessing Officer in the assessment proceedings for Assessment Year 2007-08 where the entire amount was added back Date of Judgment: 17.07.2018 in ITA Nos.312 & 313 of 2016 Commissioner of Income-tax & another vs. Ohio University Christ College 35/47 claiming 1/5th

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