ABB INDIA LTD vs. JOINT COMMISSIONER OF

Bench: P.S.DINESH KUMAR,M G UMA

Section 147 of the Act dated 19.12.2013 on the ground that deduction was allowed inadvertently is not sustainable. 12. In substance, Shri Suryanarayana's argument is, the AO had accepted the explanation and passed the assessment order. Therefore, the deductions allowed previously could not be disallowed subsequently on the ground that the same were inadvertently allowed. In support

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

SRI MUKESH GUPTA vs. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF

The appeal is dismissed

Bench: D K SINGH,RAJESH RAI K

section 197 of the Companies Act for payment of managerial remuneration to a director of the company. However, exception is when remuneration is paid for professional services rendered by a director. In the instant case, the Articles of Association or the terms of the agreement, whereby the assessee receives remuneration from the company is not on record. When an assessee

THE PR. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (4) vs. M/S CHAMUNDI WINERY AND DISTILLERY

Bench: S.SUJATHA,VINEET KOTHARI

197-200 Date of Judgment 25-09-2018 I.T.A.No.155/2016 and connected matters The Pr. Commissioner of Income Tax & Ors. Vs. M/s. Chamundi Winery and Distillery 97/137 Sl.No CASE LAWS ON REAL INCOME Page No. 39. CIT Vs. Bokaro Steel Ltd 236 ITR 315 (SC) 240-245 CASE LAWS ON DIVERSION BY OVERRIDING TITLES Page No 3 CIT Vs. Sitaldas

PR. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX vs. M/S CHAMUNDI WINERY AND DISTILLERY

Bench: S.SUJATHA,VINEET KOTHARI

197-200 Date of Judgment 25-09-2018 I.T.A.No.155/2016 and connected matters The Pr. Commissioner of Income Tax & Ors. Vs. M/s. Chamundi Winery and Distillery 97/137 Sl.No CASE LAWS ON REAL INCOME Page No. 39. CIT Vs. Bokaro Steel Ltd 236 ITR 315 (SC) 240-245 CASE LAWS ON DIVERSION BY OVERRIDING TITLES Page No 3 CIT Vs. Sitaldas

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

SMT JAMUNA VERNEKAR vs. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX

In the result, the impugned order of the tribunal dated

Bench: ALOK ARADHE,R. NATARAJ

Section 2(22)(e) of the Act. Thus, the appeal preferred by the assessee was allowed. Being aggrieved by the aforesaid order of the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), the revenue filed an appeal before the Tribunal. The Tribunal, by an order dated 31.08.2012, allowed the appeal preferred 6 the revenue. In the aforesaid factual background, the appeal has been