CERNER HEALTHCARE SOLUTIONS PVT LTD vs. THE ADDITIONAL COMMISSIONER OF

In the result, the appeal has been allowed

Bench: ALOK ARADHE,R. NATARAJ

207/-. The inputs disallowed included purchase of food and beverages, housekeeping and office maintenance, printing and stationery, maintenance of photocopying machine, sports goods and events, car lease etc. 3. Thereupon, the appellant filed an appeal before the Appellate Authority. The Appellate Authority, by an order dated 15.07.2014, allowed the appeal preferred by the appellant. However, the Additional Commissioner of Commercial

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

In the result, the appeal has been allowed

Bench: S.SUJATHA,VINEET KOTHARI

207/-. The inputs disallowed included purchase of food and beverages, housekeeping and office maintenance, printing and stationery, maintenance of photocopying machine, sports goods and events, car lease etc. 3. Thereupon, the appellant filed an appeal before the Appellate Authority. The Appellate Authority, by an order dated 15.07.2014, allowed the appeal preferred by the appellant. However, the Additional Commissioner of Commercial

THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX vs. M/S CANARA BANK

Bench: P.S.DINESH KUMAR,T.G. SHIVASHANKARE GOWDA

section 14A of the Act by even when the conditions for invoking said provisions as fully satisfied in the case of the assessee? 6. Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal is right in law in setting aside disallowances on account of AFS and HFT category of investments by relying upon the decisions which

PR COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX vs. M/S ENNOBLE CONSTRUCTION

Bench: KRISHNA S.DIXIT,P.KRISHNA BHAT

207) 5 273 ITR 50 - 15 - ITA No. 383 of 2016 from the precincts of Section 260A which employs the expression ‘substantial question of law’. C. AS TO BURDEN OF PROOF AND IMPOSSIBILITY OF ITS DISCHARGE: (i) As already mentioned above, the burden of proving the expenditure incurred ‘wholly and exclusively’ for the purpose of business, is on the Assessee

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

In the result the substantial questions of law are

Bench: ALOK ARADHE,R. NATARAJ

disallowances to the tune of Rs.17,96,250/- were made and demand of Rs.9,85,514/- was made on the assessee. Thereafter, the Commissioner of Income Tax invoked the powers under Section 263 of the Act and a show cause notice dated 23.10.2007 was issued by the Commissioner of Income Tax. In the notice, it was stated that the order

MPHASIS LTD vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX

Bench: The Hon'Ble Mr. Justice Krishna S.Dixit

disallow the said expenses u/s.40(a)(i) of the IT Act. Therefore I have reason to believe that Rs.722,02,48,792/- has escaped assessment within the meaning of section 147 of the IT Act”. The text of the reasons nowhere states that there is failure on the part of the petitioner to disclose the alleged non- deduction

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

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 DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX vs. SRI.B.KUMAR GOWDA MINE OWNERS

Bench: B.V.NAGARATHNA,B.A.PATIL

section 37 of the Income tax Act?” 2. Briefly stated, the facts are that the assessee had debited certain legal expenditure incurred while defending certain writ petitions filed by M/s.JSW Steels Ltd., and M/s.Sathavahana Ispat Ltd., in which, the aforesaid parties had sought for quashing of Government notifications granting mining lease to the assessee. The Assessing Officer intended to disallow

PR. COMMISSIONER OF vs. M/S SASKEN

Bench: S.SUJATHA,VINEET KOTHARI

section 292BB of the Act?” 3. The learned Tribunal, after discussing the rival contentions of both the Appellants-Revenue and Respondent-Assessee, has returned the findings as under: “8. We have perused orders and heard rival contentions. It is not disputed by revenue that assessee had vide its letters dated 12/9/2006 and 10/12/2007 requested AO to furnish reasons for which