THE PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER vs. M/S OBULAPURAM MINING

Bench: K.SOMASHEKAR,UMESH M ADIGA

2) of Section 92A are not fulfilled, there is no relationship of AE between the Assessee Company and GLATIPL and therefore, the provisions of chapter X of the Income Tax Act, are not applicable. 9. It is further stated as regards the issue of claim of bogus transportation expenses of iron ore at Rs.86,43,47,335/- that during

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

Bench: S.SUJATHA,VINEET KOTHARI

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 in the demerged company.” 36. He also drew our attention to Section 46-A of the Act which provides for “Levy of capital gains on purchase by the Company

SRI N GOVINDARAJU vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER

Appeal stands disposed of

Bench: S.SUJATHA,VINEET SARAN

V Aravind has submitted that the said section 147 is in two parts, which have to be read independently, and the phrase “such income” in the first part is with regard to which reasons have been recorded and the phrase “any other income” in the second part is with regard to where no reasons are recorded in the notice

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

v) Whether the tribunal has acted in contravention of the provision of Section 7 254(2) of the Act while passing the order dated 06.12.2017 on an application for rectification filed by the assessee.? 2. Facts leading to filing of these appeals briefly stated are that assessee is engaged in the business of selling coffee to domestic and overseas customers

COFFEEDAY GLOBAL LTD. vs. ADDITIONAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX

In the result, the orders dated 21

Bench: ALOK ARADHE,ASHOK S.KINAGI

v) Whether the tribunal has acted in contravention of the provision of Section 7 254(2) of the Act while passing the order dated 06.12.2017 on an application for rectification filed by the assessee.? 2. Facts leading to filing of these appeals briefly stated are that assessee is engaged in the business of selling coffee to domestic and overseas customers

COFFEEDAY GLOBAL LTD. vs. ADDITIONAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX

In the result, the orders dated 21

Bench: ALOK ARADHE,ASHOK S.KINAGI

v) Whether the tribunal has acted in contravention of the provision of Section 7 254(2) of the Act while passing the order dated 06.12.2017 on an application for rectification filed by the assessee.? 2. Facts leading to filing of these appeals briefly stated are that assessee is engaged in the business of selling coffee to domestic and overseas customers

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 PR. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX vs. M/S CISCO SYSTEMS

The appeals are allowed; the impugned

Bench: SATISH CHANDRA SHARMA,R. NATARAJ

disallowed the excess depreciation claimed on networking equipments. 3. The Principal Commissioner of Income Tax, Bengaluru, thereafter issued a notice under Section 263 of the Act of 1961 on 5.3.2015 and called upon the assessee to explain as to why the assessment order passed by the assessing officer under Section 143(3) of the Act of 1961 should

CHITTHARANJAN A DASANNACHARYA vs. THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-V

In the result, the appeal is allowed

Bench: ALOK ARADHE,H.T. NARENDRA PRASAD

v. The finding of the Hon'ble Tribunal that there was an employer-employee relationship between SiRF, USA and the Appellant is contrary to the material on record and thus perverse? 4 2. Facts leading to filing of this appeal briefly stated are that the assessee is a software engineer who was employed with Aerospace Systems Pvt. Ltd., a company

THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX vs. ING VYSYA BANK LTD

In the result, this appeal is allowed in part,

Bench: B.MANOHAR,D.V.SHYLENDRA KUMAR

disallowance is not only fully justified but also a finding of fact we had referred to on principle of law and also the investment does not part- take the character of stock-in-trade. Even in trading and business practices long lasting investment if at all is in the nature of capital asset and not a stock-in-trade

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

V and elsewhere in this lease or any of the annexures, which include but are not limited to requisite lifts and generators, Primary Power and 100% Power Back-up for Common Areas, cleanliness and upkeep of Tower A maintenance of lawn security services, water etc. for Tower A and such necessary area of IBC Knowledge Park for ingress and egress

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

V and elsewhere in this lease or any of the annexures, which include but are not limited to requisite lifts and generators, Primary Power and 100% Power Back-up for Common Areas, cleanliness and upkeep of Tower A maintenance of lawn security services, water etc. for Tower A and such necessary area of IBC Knowledge Park for ingress and egress

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

V and elsewhere in this lease or any of the annexures, which include but are not limited to requisite lifts and generators, Primary Power and 100% Power Back-up for Common Areas, cleanliness and upkeep of Tower A maintenance of lawn security services, water etc. for Tower A and such necessary area of IBC Knowledge Park for ingress and egress

THE PR COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX vs. M/S ATRIA WIND (KADAMBUR) PVT LTD

Bench: CHIEF JUSTICE,C M JOSHI

47(xiii) (a) and (c) of the Act. The said conclusions are based on factual findings and we find no infirmity with the same. The AO had also rejected the assessee's contention on the ground that the shares issued in the assessee firm to the erstwhile partners was not in the same ratio. However, we note that there

M/S SUBEX LTD vs. THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-III,

In the result, appeal is partly allowed as indicated

Bench: S.SUJATHA,RAVI V HOSMANI

V. HOSMANI I.T.A.No.378/2015 BETWEEN : M/s SUBEX LTD., RMZ ECOWORLD DEVARABISANAHALLI, OUTER RING ROAD, BENGALURU-560 037 REP BY ITS MANAGING DIRECTOR, SRI SURJEET SINGH, S/O SRI THAKUR SINGH AGED ABOUT 47 YEARS ...APPELLANT (BY SRI CHYTHANYA K.K., ADV.) AND : THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-III, C.R.BUILDING, 1ST FLOOR, QUEEN’S ROAD, BENGALURU-560 001 …RESPONDENT (BY SRI JEEVAN

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

Bench: K.SOMASHEKAR,UMESH M ADIGA

V- ADVOCATE) AND: SMT. G LAKSHMI ARUNA NO.8, ASHOKNAGAR HAVAMABAVI SURUGUPPA ROAD BELLARY – 583 101 PAN:AFJPA 5974P …RESPONDENT (BY SRI. MAYANK JAIN - ADVOCATE) 2 THIS ITA IS FILED UNDER SECTION 260A OF THE INCOME TAX ACT, 1961, PRAYING TO: i)FORMULATE THE SUBSTANTIAL QUESTIONS OF LAW STATED IN THE APPEAL AND ALLOW THE APPEAL; ii) SET ASIDE THE ORDERS

PR. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX vs. SHRI. GALI JANARDHANA REDDY

Bench: K.SOMASHEKAR,UMESH M ADIGA

V- ADVOCATE) AND: SHRI GALI JANARDHANA REDDY NO.8, ASHOKNAGAR HAVAMABAVI, SURUGUPPA ROAD BELLARY – 583 101, PAN:AFBPR 9737D. …RESPONDENT (BY SRI. MAYANK JAIN - ADVOCATE) THIS ITA IS FILED UNDER SECTION 260A OF THE INCOME TAX ACT, 1961, PRAYING TO: i)FORMULATE THE SUBSTANTIAL QUESTIONS OF LAW STATED IN THE APPEAL AND ALLOW THE APPEAL; ii) SET ASIDE THE ORDERS PASSED