PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-7 vs. M/S TECNO TREE CONVERGENCE LTD.,

Bench: KRISHNA S DIXIT,G BASAVARAJA

disallowance made under section 40(a)(ia) of the Act in respect of commission payment by holding that the provisions of section 195 are not applicable in the facts of present case ignoring that assessee had failed to establish nature of payments and even - 3 - NC: 2025:KHC:7603-DB ITA No. 204

PR COMMISSIONER OF vs. M/S SYNGENE

In the result, we do not find any merit in this appeal, the

Bench: ALOK ARADHE,H.T. NARENDRA PRASAD

disallowed the deduction claimed by the assessee under Section 10B of the Act to the tune of Rs.21,31,59,892/- and added it to the income of the assessee. 5 4. The assessee thereupon approached the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) who by an order dated 22.06.2012 inter alia held that Assessing Officer as unable to counter the claim

PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-4 vs. M/S MCML SYSTEMS PVT LTD

Bench: ABHAY SHREENIWAS OKA (CJ),S.G.PANDIT

disallowance, the assessee filed appeal before the Commissioner of Income Tax Appeals, Bengaluru. The Appellate Authority partly allowed the appeal filed by the assessee in respect of deductions made under Section 10A of the Act. The revenue, aggrieved by the said order, filed ITA ITA.Nos.36-37/2018 - 3 - Nos.2089 and 2094/Bang/2016 before the Tribunal. The Tribunal upheld the order

PR. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX vs. M/S SASKEN

Appeals are dismissed at the stage of admission

Bench: ABHAY SHREENIWAS OKA (CJ),S.G.PANDIT

disallowance of deduction under Section 10A in respect of deemed export on account of sale to another STP unit, the Tribunal, relying upon the decision of Tata Elxsi Ltd. (supra), held in favour of the assessee. Aggrieved by the order of the Tribunal, the revenue has I.T.A.Nos.44-45/2016 - 5 - preferred these appeals urging the following four substantial questions

PR. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-7 vs. M/S. UNISYS INDIA PRIVATE LTD.,

Bench: S.SUJATHA,VINEET KOTHARI

disallowance of expenditure incurred in foreign currency while computing deductions under Section 10-A by relying upon the decision of this Hon’ble Court in the case of CIT v/s. Date of Judgment 30-08-2018, ITA No.221/2018 Pr. Commissioner of Income Tax-7 & Another Vs. M/s. Unisys India Private Ltd., 3/5 M/s. Tata Elxsi when the said matter

THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX vs. M/S BPL SANYO FINANCE LTD

In the result, the appeal filed by the revenue is

Bench: The Tribunal Was Arising From The Order Dated 4Th June 2004 Passed By The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) Bangalore (For Short “The

disallowed in computing the total income of such person as a result thereof, shall for the purposes of clause (c) of this sub-section, be deemed to represent the income in respect of which particulars have been concealed. 24. In this connection, at this stage, we would like to refer to the judgment of the Supreme Court in K.P.Madhusudan

PR COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX vs. M/S GE MEDICAL SYSTEMS INDIA PVT.LTD

Bench: S.SUJATHA,VINEET KOTHARI

204 Taxman 321/17/taxman.com 100/349 ITR 98. The issue before the Karnataka High Court was whether the Tribunal was correct in holding that while computing relief under Section 10A of the IT Act, the amount of communication expenses should be excluded from the total turnover if the same are reduced from the export turnover? While giving the answer to the issue

PR COMMISSIONER OF vs. M/S GE MEDICAL SYSTEMS INDIA PVT.LTD

Bench: S.SUJATHA,VINEET KOTHARI

section 10A provides that such Date of Judgment 23-07-2018 I.T.A.No.77 /2016 Pr.Commissioner of Income Tax & Anr., Vs. M/s. GE Medical Systems India Pvt. Ltd., 4/19 expenses have to be reduced only from the export turnover? 3. “Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the Tribunal erred in setting aside the disallowance of Rs.27

PR COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX vs. M/S GE MEDICAL SYSTEMS INDIA PVT.LTD

Bench: S.SUJATHA,VINEET KOTHARI

section 10A provides that such expenses have to be reduced only from the export turnover? 3. “Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the Tribunal erred in setting Date of Judgment 23-07-2018 I.T.A.No.76 /2016 Pr.Commissioner of Income Tax & Anr., Vs. M/s. GE Medical Systems India Pvt. Ltd., 4/19 aside the disallowance of Rs.27

PR COMMISSIONER OF vs. M/S TELELOGIC INDIA PVT LTD

Bench: S.SUJATHA,VINEET KOTHARI

disallowance of rent equalization provision for an amount of Rs.5,47,46,191/- even when the assessing authority has applied Accounting Standard -19 of principle of accountancy, which stipulated that if no liability were to exist against a provision, the Date of Judgment 28-06-2018, ITA No.550/2016 Pr. Commissioner of Income Tax-7 & another Vs. M/s Telelogic India

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

Bench: S.SUJATHA,VINEET KOTHARI

SECTION 37 OF THE ACT. Page No 7 CIT Vs. Rajasthan State Government Sugar Mills Ltd 393 ITR 421 (Raj) 32-42 8 CIT Vs. G Balraj [2017] 390 ITR 50 (Kar) 43-47 10 CIT Vs. Chandulal Keshaval & Co., 38 ITR 601 (SC) 58-63 15 Sasoon J David

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

Bench: S.SUJATHA,VINEET KOTHARI

SECTION 37 OF THE ACT. Page No 7 CIT Vs. Rajasthan State Government Sugar Mills Ltd 393 ITR 421 (Raj) 32-42 8 CIT Vs. G Balraj [2017] 390 ITR 50 (Kar) 43-47 10 CIT Vs. Chandulal Keshaval & Co., 38 ITR 601 (SC) 58-63 15 Sasoon J David

THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX vs. M/S ACER INDIA PVT. LTD.,

Bench: S.SUJATHA,VINEET KOTHARI

SECTION 260-A OF I.T.ACT, 1961 ARISING OUT OF ORDER DATED 16.03.2012 PASSED IN ITA NO.22/BANG/2011, FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2006- 2007, PRAYING TO: I. FORMULATE THE SUBSTANTIAL QUESTIONS OF LAW STATED THEREIN. II. ALLOW THE APPEAL Date of Judgment 25-06-2018, ITA No.243/2012 The Commissioner of Income Tax & another Vs. M/s. Acer India Pvt. Ltd. 2/26

THE PR. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX vs. M/S. ACER INDIA PVT LTD

Bench: S.SUJATHA,VINEET KOTHARI

SECTION 260-A OF INCOME TAX ACT 1961, ARISING OUT OF ORDER DATED 04.11.2015 PASSED IN ITA NO.1179/BANG/2012, FOR THE ASSESSMENT Date of Judgment 25-06-2018, ITA No.356/2016 The Pr. Commissioner of Income-tax CIT[A] & another Vs. M/s. Acer India Pvt. Ltd. 2/25 YEAR 2007-2008. PRAYING TO: I. FORMULATE THE SUBSTANTIAL QUESTIONS OF LAW STATED ABOVE