THE PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER vs. M/S OBULAPURAM MINING

Bench: K.SOMASHEKAR,UMESH M ADIGA

Disallowance of Expenses under Explanation to section 37(1) and in respect of third issue i.e., addition made on account of sale of Land, the ITAT set-aside the order of CIT (A) on that issue and restored the matter to A.O. for a fresh decision with the same directions as were given by the tribunal

M/S FIDELITY BUSINESS SERVICES INDIA PVT LTD vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX

Bench: S.SUJATHA,VINEET KOTHARI

iv) Any payment made by company on purchase of its own shares from a shareholder in accordance with the provisions of section 77A of the Companies Act, 1956 ( 1 of 1956); (v) Any distribution of shares pursuant to a demerger by the resulting company to the shareholders of the demerged company (whether) or not there is a reduction of capital

M/S NANDI STEELS LIMITED vs. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX

In the result, the findings

Bench: ALOK ARADHE,R. NATARAJ

iv) Whether the Tribunal was justified in law in not serving the copy of the Tribunal 4 order dated 11.12.2008 as referred in the Tribunal order dated 19.02.2011 in respect of disposal of grounds with regard to issues on Section 148 of the Act on the facts and circumstances of the case?". 2. Facts leading to filing of this appeal

COFFEEDAY GLOBAL LTD. vs. ADDITIONAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX

In the result, the orders dated 21

Bench: ALOK ARADHE,ASHOK S.KINAGI

iv) In respect of claim for disallowance of processing and other charges, the matter was remitted to the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals). 4. The assessee thereafter filed a miscellaneous petition under Section 254(2) of the Act which was disposed of by an order dated 06.12.2017 and it was held as under: (i) The claim for disallowance of interest

PR. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX vs. M/S AMALGAMATED BEAN COFFEE TRADING CO LTD

In the result, the orders dated 21

Bench: ALOK ARADHE,ASHOK S.KINAGI

iv) In respect of claim for disallowance of processing and other charges, the matter was remitted to the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals). 4. The assessee thereafter filed a miscellaneous petition under Section 254(2) of the Act which was disposed of by an order dated 06.12.2017 and it was held as under: (i) The claim for disallowance of interest

COFFEEDAY GLOBAL LTD. vs. ADDITIONAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX

In the result, the orders dated 21

Bench: ALOK ARADHE,ASHOK S.KINAGI

iv) In respect of claim for disallowance of processing and other charges, the matter was remitted to the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals). 4. The assessee thereafter filed a miscellaneous petition under Section 254(2) of the Act which was disposed of by an order dated 06.12.2017 and it was held as under: (i) The claim for disallowance of interest

M/S CUTCHI MEMON UNION vs. THE DEPUTY DIRECTOR OF INCOME TAX (EXEMPTIONS)

In the result, the appeal is disposed of

Bench: ALOK ARADHE,M.I.ARUN

disallowed. The assessee thereupon filed an appeal before the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), who by an order dated 27.04.2012, by placing reliance on decision of Calcutta High Court in CIT VS. JAYASHREE CHARITY TRUST, 159 ITR 280 (Cal) and decision of Gujarat High Court in CIT VS. GANGA CHARITY TRUST FUND, 162 ITR 612 (Guj) set aside the order

PR.COMMISSIONER OF INCOMETAX-2 vs. M/S.EYGBS (INDIA) PVT LTD

Bench: CHIEF JUSTICE,C M JOSHI

2(24) of the Act and this Section defines profit and gains of the undertaking and thus is not eligible for computation under Section 10AA of the Act after the enhancement of income on voluntary TP adjustments by the assessee consequent to APA "? (iv) "Whether on facts and circumstances of the case, the Tribunal's order can be said

M/S WIPRO LIMITED vs. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX

The appeals stand disposed of, accordingly

Bench: N.KUMAR,B.SREENIVASE GOWDA

disallowed on the ground that the DTAA with USA and Canada shows that the claim is admissible only for the taxes paid under Income Tax Act in India and Federal tax in USA and Canada. In coming to the said conclusion the authorities have failed to notice Section 91 of the Act. Statutorily the assessee would be entitled to deduction

THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX vs. M/S WIPRO LTD

The appeals stand disposed of, accordingly

Bench: N.KUMAR,B.SREENIVASE GOWDA

disallowed on the ground that the DTAA with USA and Canada shows that the claim is admissible only for the taxes paid under Income Tax Act in India and Federal tax in USA and Canada. In coming to the said conclusion the authorities have failed to notice Section 91 of the Act. Statutorily the assessee would be entitled to deduction

THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX vs. M/S QUEST GLOBAL ENGINEERING SERVICES PVT. LTD.,

In the result, we don to find any

Bench: ALOK ARADHE,R. NATARAJ

2) For the purposes of sub-section (1), gain or loss arising on account of the effects of change in foreign exchange rates shall be in respect of all foreign currency transactions, including those relating to - (i) monetary items and non-monetary items. (ii) translation of financial statements of foreign operations; (iii) forward exchange contracts; (iv) foreign currency translation reserved

THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX vs. M/S. IBC KNOWLEDGE PARK PVT. LTD.,

In the result, the appeals filed by the Revenue

Bench: B.V.NAGARATHNA,JAYANT PATEL

24. Learned counsel for the Revenue, however, contended that the Appellate Authorities were not right in holding that a sum of Rs.1.91 crore cannot be disallowed as a deduction. He submitted that the said amount was not reflected in the balance sheet and no particulars had been furnished by the assessee in that regard. Learned counsel contended that the Appellate

THE COMMISIONER OF INCOME-TAX vs. M/S IBC KNOWLEDGE PARK PVT LTD

In the result, the appeals filed by the Revenue

Bench: B.V.NAGARATHNA,JAYANT PATEL

24. Learned counsel for the Revenue, however, contended that the Appellate Authorities were not right in holding that a sum of Rs.1.91 crore cannot be disallowed as a deduction. He submitted that the said amount was not reflected in the balance sheet and no particulars had been furnished by the assessee in that regard. Learned counsel contended that the Appellate

THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX vs. M/S. IBC KNOWLEDGE PARK PVT. LTD.,

In the result, the appeals filed by the Revenue

Bench: B.V.NAGARATHNA,JAYANT PATEL

24. Learned counsel for the Revenue, however, contended that the Appellate Authorities were not right in holding that a sum of Rs.1.91 crore cannot be disallowed as a deduction. He submitted that the said amount was not reflected in the balance sheet and no particulars had been furnished by the assessee in that regard. Learned counsel contended that the Appellate

M/S TEJAS NETWORKS LIMITED vs. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX

In the result, I proceed to pass the following:

Bench: The Hon’Ble Mr.Justice Aravind Kumar

iv) xxx (2) For the purposes xxx of Section 32. 21 (2A) Where xxx of Section 32A. (2AA) Where the assessee xxx authority. (2AB) (1) Where a company engaged in the business of [bio-technology or in [any business of manufacture or production of any article or thing, not being an article or thing specified in the list

MANGALORE REFINERY AND PETROCHEMICALS LTD vs. PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX

In the result, I pass the following:-

Bench: The Hon'Ble Mr.Justice S.R.Krishna Kumar

disallowance under section 40(a)(i), the disputed tax which 15 is subject matter of departmental appeal before the High Court is as under:- AYs Tax Arrears Disputed tax [i.e., tax @ 33.99% on disputed income] Payable under VsVs

MANGALORE REFINERY AND PETROCHEMICALS LTD vs. PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX

In the result, I pass the following:-

Bench: The Hon'Ble Mr.Justice S.R.Krishna Kumar

disallowance under section 40(a)(i), the disputed tax which 15 is subject matter of departmental appeal before the High Court is as under:- AYs Tax Arrears Disputed tax [i.e., tax @ 33.99% on disputed income] Payable under VsVs

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

iv. In the absence of express finding, it cannot be said the view of the Assessing Officer is a plausible view. 14. At this stage, we deem it appropriate to reproduce the relevant paragraphs of the PCIT’s order under Section 263 of the Act as under: “The assessee company is engaged in the manufacturing and sale of transmission line