PR. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-5 vs. M/S. PUMA SPORTS INDIA P., LTD.,

The appeal stands dismissed

Bench: SATISH CHANDRA SHARMA,V SRISHANANDA

disallowance made under Section 40(a)(1) of the Act for the sum of 5 Rs.7,29,13,934/- by holding that the income of the non-residents by way of commission cannot be considered as accrued or arisen or deemed to accrue or arise in India as the services of such agents were rendered or utilized outside India

M/S THE KARNATAKA STATE CO-OPERATIVE APEX BANK vs. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX

In the result, the appeal is disposed of

Bench: ALOK ARADHE,HEMANT CHANDANGOUDAR

193 (SC), and 'ACIT VS. 9 RAJESH JHAVERI STOCK BROKERS P. LTD.', (2007) 291 ITR 500 (SC). 5. On the other hand, learned counsel for the revenue submitted that if an assessee discovers any omission or any wrong statement, he may furnish a revised return under Section 139(5) of the Act within the time limit prescribed therein. However, once

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

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 J K CEMENT WORKS vs. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA

Bench: H.B.PRABHAKARA SASTRY,VINEET KOTHARI

Section 12 of the KVAT Act, providing for deduction of input tax credit in respect of the capital goods, both would support the case of the present assessee. We do not find any force in the contention of the learned Additional Government Advocate or the premise taken by the authorities below, that merely because item Cement is mentioned in item

THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX vs. PRAVEEN V DODDANAVAR

Bench: SREENIVAS HARISH KUMAR,VINEET KOTHARI

Section 12 of the KVAT Act, providing for deduction of input tax credit in respect of the capital goods, both would support the case of the present assessee. We do not find any force in the contention of the learned Additional Government Advocate or the premise taken by the authorities below, that merely because item Cement is mentioned in item

THE BAILHONGAL URBAN COOPERATIVE BANK LTD vs. THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX

Bench: S.ABDUL NAZEER,P.S.DINESH KUMAR

Section 12 of the KVAT Act, providing for deduction of input tax credit in respect of the capital goods, both would support the case of the present assessee. We do not find any force in the contention of the learned Additional Government Advocate or the premise taken by the authorities below, that merely because item Cement is mentioned in item

COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX vs. T AHOBALA RAO

The appeal is dismissed

Bench: B.MANOHAR,K.SREEDHAR RAO

Section 158BD of the Act was issued on 10.01.2002 calling upon the assessee to file the returns in the status of HUF. Accordingly, the assessee filed returns declaring NIL undisclosed income on 30-1-2002. Further, the assessee in his letter has contended that the books of accounts and documents such as share certificates do not represent the undisclosed income

THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX vs. SRI CHANDRAKANT P SANU

The appeal is dismissed as infructuous

Bench: B.MANOHAR,K.SREEDHAR RAO

disallowed the deduction. 5. Before the CIT(A), the assessee had produced the original agreement entered into with Sri Janardhan and also an affidavit of 4 attesting witness, Sri H Rathindranath, who had sworn to the effect that the compensation amount stated in the agreement was paid to Sri Janardhan by the assessee. The CIT (A) found the version

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

The appeal is allowed in part

Bench: B.MANOHAR,DILIP B.BHOSALE

disallowance of claim of long term and short term capital loss is concerned, full benefit has been given to the assessee by 9 setting aside the order passed by the First Appellate Authority. With regard to the receipt of Rs.25.00 crores, towards transfer of technical knowhow is concerned, it is a capital receipt and not revenue receipt and not liable