THE PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER vs. M/S OBULAPURAM MINING

Bench: K.SOMASHEKAR,UMESH M ADIGA

198 and this section, either by the articles of the company, or by a resolution or, if the articles so require, by a special resolution, passed by the company in general meeting 1 and the 34 remuneration payable to any such director determined as aforesaid shall be inclusive of the remuneration payable to such director for services rendered

PR. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX vs. SRI SRI ADICHUNCHUNAGIRI SHIKSHANA TRUST

In the result, all the appeals are

Bench: JAYANT PATEL,B.SREENIVASE GOWDA

disallowance of depreciation, the assessee preferred appeals which were allowed in favour of the assessee. Revenue challenged the said orders of the CIT(Appeals) before the Tribunal unsuccessfully. The orders passed by the Tribunal are challenged in these appeals. 8. ITA No.431/2013, ITA Nos.56/2013 and 108/2014 are filed by the revenue challenging the orders passed by the Tribunal whereby

THE DIRECTOR OF INCOME TAX EXEMPTIONS vs. AL-AMEEN CHARITABLE FUND TRUST

The appeals are dismissed

Bench: S.SUJATHA,N.K.PATIL

disallowance of depreciation, the assessee preferred appeals which were allowed in favour of the assessee. Revenue challenged the said orders of the CIT(Appeals) before the Tribunal unsuccessfully. The orders passed by the Tribunal are challenged in these appeals. 8. ITA No.431/2013, ITA Nos.56/2013 and 108/2014 are filed by the revenue challenging the orders passed by the Tribunal whereby

THE DIRECTOR OF INCOME TAX vs. INTERNATIONAL INSTITUTE OF INFORMATION TECHNOLOGY

The appeals are dismissed

Bench: S.SUJATHA,N.K.PATIL

disallowance of depreciation, the assessee preferred appeals which were allowed in favour of the assessee. Revenue challenged the said orders of the CIT(Appeals) before the Tribunal unsuccessfully. The orders passed by the Tribunal are challenged in these appeals. 8. ITA No.431/2013, ITA Nos.56/2013 and 108/2014 are filed by the revenue challenging the orders passed by the Tribunal whereby

COMMISSIONER OF INCOME vs. SRI ADICHUNCHANAGIRI

The appeals are dismissed

Bench: S.SUJATHA,N.K.PATIL

disallowance of depreciation, the assessee preferred appeals which were allowed in favour of the assessee. Revenue challenged the said orders of the CIT(Appeals) before the Tribunal unsuccessfully. The orders passed by the Tribunal are challenged in these appeals. 8. ITA No.431/2013, ITA Nos.56/2013 and 108/2014 are filed by the revenue challenging the orders passed by the Tribunal whereby

THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX vs. SRI ADICHUNCHUNGIRI

The appeals are dismissed

Bench: S.SUJATHA,N.K.PATIL

disallowance of depreciation, the assessee preferred appeals which were allowed in favour of the assessee. Revenue challenged the said orders of the CIT(Appeals) before the Tribunal unsuccessfully. The orders passed by the Tribunal are challenged in these appeals. 8. ITA No.431/2013, ITA Nos.56/2013 and 108/2014 are filed by the revenue challenging the orders passed by the Tribunal whereby

THE DIRECTOR OF INCOME TAX vs. M/S GOKULA EDUCATION FOUNDATION (MEDICAL)

The appeals are dismissed

Bench: S.SUJATHA,N.K.PATIL

disallowance of depreciation, the assessee preferred appeals which were allowed in favour of the assessee. Revenue challenged the said orders of the CIT(Appeals) before the Tribunal unsuccessfully. The orders passed by the Tribunal are challenged in these appeals. 8. ITA No.431/2013, ITA Nos.56/2013 and 108/2014 are filed by the revenue challenging the orders passed by the Tribunal whereby

THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX vs. M/S KARNATAKA REDDY JANASANGHA

The appeals are dismissed

Bench: S.SUJATHA,N.K.PATIL

disallowance of depreciation, the assessee preferred appeals which were allowed in favour of the assessee. Revenue challenged the said orders of the CIT(Appeals) before the Tribunal unsuccessfully. The orders passed by the Tribunal are challenged in these appeals. 8. ITA No.431/2013, ITA Nos.56/2013 and 108/2014 are filed by the revenue challenging the orders passed by the Tribunal whereby

THE DIRECTOR OF INCOME TAX vs. M/S GOKULA EDUCATION FOUNDATION

The appeals are dismissed

Bench: S.SUJATHA,N.K.PATIL

disallowance of depreciation, the assessee preferred appeals which were allowed in favour of the assessee. Revenue challenged the said orders of the CIT(Appeals) before the Tribunal unsuccessfully. The orders passed by the Tribunal are challenged in these appeals. 8. ITA No.431/2013, ITA Nos.56/2013 and 108/2014 are filed by the revenue challenging the orders passed by the Tribunal whereby

SRI N GOVINDARAJU vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER

Appeal stands disposed of

Bench: S.SUJATHA,VINEET SARAN

198 ITR 297 has held that “the proceedings under S.147 of the Act are for the benefit of the Revenue 18 and not an assessee and are aimed at garnering the ‘escaped income’ of an assessee”. While interpreting the provisions of section 147, different High Courts have held differently, i.e., some have held that the second part of section

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

198 ITR 297 (SC) and holding that concluded issue in the original proceeding cannot be re-agitated in re- assessment proceedings even though the 3 case of the appellant is distinguishable in as much as there was no original assessment proceedings on the facts and circumstances of the case? (2) Whether the Tribunal was justified in law in not appreciating

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

PR. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX vs. SMT. G. LAKSHMI ARUNA

Bench: K.SOMASHEKAR,UMESH M ADIGA

Disallowed (Rs.) (I) (II) (III) 2009-10 28,76,23,325 9,95,82,217 2010-11 2,29,05,056 1,46,91,363 Of these, the Assessing Officer found that to the extent given in column 3 above, the appellant was unable to substantiate the said expense claimed before the Assessing Officer. 16. In respect of assessment