THE PR. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX vs. M/S. TE CONNECTIVITY INDIA PVT. LTD.,

Accordingly dispose of the appeal as allowed

Bench: ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE,S RACHAIAH

197 (SC)]. 7. That apart it is his submission that, there is no error in the order of the Assessing Officer as is evident from the submissions made. The conclusion drawn by the PCIT in the order under Section 263 that a disallowance under Section 40(a)(ia) ought to be made is incorrect and erroneous/ As stated

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

Bench: S.SUJATHA,VINEET KOTHARI

1 CIT Vs. Shoorji Vallabhdas & Co. 46 ITR 144 (SC) 01-03 2 Godhra Electricity Co. Ltd Vs. CIT 225 ITR 746 (SC) 04-11 13 CIT Vs. Chemosyn Ltd 371 ITR 427 (Bom) 75-79 14 Poorna Electric Supply Co. Ltd Vs. CIT [1965] 56 ITR 521 (SC) 80-85 17 CIT Vs. Chamanlal Mangaldas

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

Bench: S.SUJATHA,VINEET KOTHARI

1 CIT Vs. Shoorji Vallabhdas & Co. 46 ITR 144 (SC) 01-03 2 Godhra Electricity Co. Ltd Vs. CIT 225 ITR 746 (SC) 04-11 13 CIT Vs. Chemosyn Ltd 371 ITR 427 (Bom) 75-79 14 Poorna Electric Supply Co. Ltd Vs. CIT [1965] 56 ITR 521 (SC) 80-85 17 CIT Vs. Chamanlal Mangaldas

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

1), BENGALURU. (iii) PASS SUCH OTHER SUITABLE ORDERS AS THIS HON'BLE COURT DEEMS FIT TO GRANT IN THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE AND EQUITY. THIS I.T.A. COMING ON FOR FINAL HEARING, THIS DAY, ALOK ARADHE J., DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: JUDGMENT This appeal under Section 260A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter

THE COMMISSIONER OF vs. M/S ABB INDIA LTD

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

1, 2007. 3 Assessment Year 4 Assessing Officer I.T.A No.71/2017 C/W I.T.A No.785/2017 7 7. On consideration of assessee's reply to the notice under Section 148 of the Act, the AO, vide order dated 19.12.2013 disallowed the claim made under Section 10(23G) of the Act. In addition, the Assessing Officer also proceeded to bring to tax Rs.5

ABB INDIA LTD vs. JOINT COMMISSIONER OF

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

1, 2007. 3 Assessment Year 4 Assessing Officer I.T.A No.71/2017 C/W I.T.A No.785/2017 7 7. On consideration of assessee's reply to the notice under Section 148 of the Act, the AO, vide order dated 19.12.2013 disallowed the claim made under Section 10(23G) of the Act. In addition, the Assessing Officer also proceeded to bring to tax Rs.5

SRI MUKESH GUPTA vs. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF

The appeal is dismissed

Bench: D K SINGH,RAJESH RAI K

disallowance of interest expenditure. The Tribunal while dismissing the appeals observed in the impugned order in Para 6 to 10-10.4 as under: 6. Aggrieved by the order of assessment, the assessee preferred an appeal to the first appellate authority. The CIT(A) confirmed the view taken by the Assessing Officer. 10 The relevant finding

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

1) of the Act on 01.03.2009. The case of the assessee was selected for scrutiny and notice under Section 143(2) of the Act was issued to the assessee on 19.09.2008. The Assessing Officer, by an order dated 14.12.2009, completed the assessment and determined the total income of the assessee at Rs.72,77,415/- by making an addition of Rs.59