M/S.M K AGROTECH PRIVATE LTD vs. THE ADDL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX

The appeal is allowed

Bench: The Hon'Ble Mr. Justice Ravi Malimath

Section 40A of the Act. The only ground for disallowance was with regard to three parties, where the drafts have not been crossed, i.e. Vaishnavi Oil Traders for Rs.1,04,51,051/-, Laxmi Trading Co. for Rs.7,15,294/- and Ratna Traders for Rs.24,91,071/-. He contends that even though the drafts were not crossed, the end sources have

M/S NAM ESTATES PVT. LTD. vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER

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

Bench: ALOK ARADHE,H.T. NARENDRA PRASAD

191 ITR 634 (SC), ‘CIT VS. KHEMCHAND RAMDAS’, (1938) 6 ITR 414 (PRIVY COUNCIL). 5. On the other hand, learned counsel for the revenue has submitted that Section 40A(3) provides for disallowance

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX vs. M/S GULBARGA ELECTRICITY SUPPLY COMPANY LTD.

Accordingly, appeal of Revenue is dismissed

Bench: B.VEERAPPA,VINEET KOTHARI

191. HBL/2011-12 by the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) Hubli for the Assessment year 2009-10. 2 This appeal coming on for hearing B.VEERAPPA J., this day, the Court delivered the following: JUDGMENT The Revenue filed the present appeal against the order dated 07.02.2014 made in ITA No.703/Bang/ 2013 on the file of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Bangalore Bench

MPHASIS LIMITED vs. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX

Bench: The Hon’Ble Mr.Justice B. Veerappa Writ Petition No.13313 Of 2017 (T-It)

191,88,91,064/-. Aggrieved by the said assessment order the petitioner has filed an appeal before the Tribunal and the same is pending. The petitioner also filed an application under Section 154 of the Act against the assessment order dated 31.03.2014. The Assessing Officer, by order dated 17.10.2014 determined the total income of the petitioner at Rs.302

SMT SAIRA BANU vs. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX

Bench: ARAVIND KUMAR,VINEET SARAN

disallowed 20% of 6 sale consideration by invoking Section 40A(3) of the Act. In support of his contention, learned counsel for the appellant has relied on the following decisions: i. Tolaram Daga –vs- Commissioner of Income Tax, Assam ([1965 ] 57 ITR (Sh.N.) 9) / [1966] Vol.LIX ITR 632 ii. Attar Singh Gurmukh Singh –vs- Income Tax Officer, Ludhiana [1991] 191

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

disallowing the deduction claimed by the assessee towards sales commission to the tune of Rs.16,93,91,847/- and added the same to the total income of the assessee. 4. The assessee thereupon preferred an appeal before the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) who by an order dated 01.08.2014 dismissed the appeal preferred by the assessee and upheld the order

K R SATYANARAYANA vs. THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX

In the result, the orders passed by the Commissioner of

Bench: ALOK ARADHE,H.T. NARENDRA PRASAD

disallowance under Section 80C of the Act and to adopt the guideline value as per Section 50C of the Act after providing an opportunity of hearing to the assessee. The assessee thereupon filed an appeal before the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (hereinafter referred to as 'the tribunal' for short). The tribunal by an order dated 28.11.2014 dismissed the appeal preferred

M/S T T K PRESTIGE LTD vs. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX

Bench: The Hon’Ble Mrs.Justice S.Sujatha

191) ITR 662], for initiation of action under section 147(a) (as the provision stood at the relevant time) fulfillment of the two requisite conditions in that regard is essential. At that stage, the final outcome of the proceeding is not relevant. In other words, at the initiation stage, what is required is ‘reason to believe’, but not the established

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

PR COMMISSIONER OF vs. M/S TELELOGIC INDIA PVT LTD

Bench: S.SUJATHA,VINEET KOTHARI

disallowance of rent equalization provision for an amount of Rs.5,47,46,191/- even when the assessing authority has applied Accounting Standard -19 of principle of accountancy, which stipulated that if no liability were to exist against a provision, the Date of Judgment 28-06-2018, ITA No.550/2016 Pr. Commissioner of Income Tax-7 & another Vs. M/s Telelogic India

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