THE PR COMMISSIONER OF vs. M/S MAHAVEER CALYX

Bench: SATISH CHANDRA SHARMA,V SRISHANANDA

2,20,220 sq. ft. far in excess of what was approved. By doing so, the assessee has 4 violated the law under which the sanction was granted and therefore, the assessee is not eligible for deduction under Section 80IB of the Act and accordingly, the assessee's claim of deduction under Section 80IB is disallowed

KARNATAKA STATE BEVERAGES CORPORTION LIMITED vs. THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX

Bench: The Hon’Ble Mr. Justice Anand Byrareddy Writ Petition No.12872 Of 2013 (T-It) Connected With Writ Petition No.14687 Of 2014 (T-It), Writ Petition No.15910 Of 2015 (T-It) & Writ Petition No.17514 Of 2015 (T-It) In W.P.No.12872 Of 2013 Between: Karnataka State Beverages Corporation Limited, Represented By It’S Executive Director (Finance), Sri. Shrikant B Vanahalli, Aged About 57 Years, No.78, Seethalakshmi Towers, Mission Road, Bangalore 560 027. …Petitioner

2 have drawn inspiration 35 from the 2013 amendment, whereby Clause (iib) of sub-clause (a) of Section 40 of the IT Act was inserted by the Finance Act, 2013 with effect from 1.4.2014. This apparently has been held by the Assessing Authority as being clarificatory in nature and has sought to apply it with retrospective effect. In that

THE PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER vs. M/S OBULAPURAM MINING

Bench: K.SOMASHEKAR,UMESH M ADIGA

disallowed. The jurisdictional error committed is the assessing officer’s jurisdiction is Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, 35 Central Circle-1(3), Bengaluru, whereas the jurisdictional assessing officer of the transporters is located in Andhra Pradesh. 31.Admittedly, as stated above the evidence of transporters recorded by the assessing officer outside the jurisdiction of Bengaluru has not been taken on record

M/S HAJEE A.P.BAVA & COMPANY vs. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX

In the result, the appeal is

Bench: ALOK ARADHE,M.NAGAPRASANNA

disallowed. 3. The appellant filed an appeal before the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals). The Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) by an order dated 20.09.2017 inter alia held that assessee has only created a provision for doubtful entry in the books of 6 accounts and since it is following a double entry system of accounting, corresponding entries have been made

THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX vs. M/S L.G SOFT INDIA PVT LTD

The appeal is disposed off accordingly

Bench: The Hon’Ble Mr. Justice Ravi Malimath

220/-. Exemption was claimed under Section 10A of the Income Tax Act (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’ for brevity). The Assessing Officer held that the assessee could not claim exemption under Section 10A of the Act due to violation of the conditions stipulated in Section 10A(2)(ii) & (iii) of the Act; that the assessee has split

THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX vs. M/S L.G SOFT INDIA PVT LTD

The appeal is disposed off accordingly

Bench: The Hon’Ble Mr. Justice Ravi Malimath

220/-. Exemption was claimed under Section 10A of the Income Tax Act (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’ for brevity). The Assessing Officer held that the assessee could not claim exemption under Section 10A of the Act due to violation of the conditions stipulated in Section 10A(2)(ii) & (iii) of the Act; that the assessee has split

SMT DEEPA S PAI vs. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF

In the result, the order passed by the Assessing Officer as well

Bench: ALOK ARADHE,RAVI V HOSMANI

disallowed the assesse’s claim for treating the shares as stock-in- trade and determined the income of the assessee at `2,75,48,980/-. Being aggrieved by the order of assessment, the assessee filed an appeal before Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) which was dismissed by an order dated 17.03.2010. The assessee filed an appeal before the Income

M/S TELERADIOLOGY SOLUTIONS PVT LTD vs. DY.COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX

Bench: The Hon’Ble Mr.Justice Aravind Kumar

2. Petitioner is seeking for a writ of mandamus to direct third respondent to consider the application for stay dated 28.04.2014 (Annexure-E) and to restrain the respondents from initiating recovery proceedings pursuant to notice of demand dated 19.03.2014 3 (Annexure-C) issued under Section 156 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (‘Act’ for short) during pendency of the appeal

SWARNA SOUHARDA CREDIT CO-OPERATIVE LTD vs. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS)

Bench: The Hon'Ble Mr.Justice S. Sunil Dutt Yadav

2. It is stated that the petitioner had filed its return of income for the Assessment Year 2017-2018 declaring an amount of Rs.16,68,267/- as being profits and gains of its business after having claimed deduction of Rs.16,54,031/- under Section 80P of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (“the Act”, for short). 3 3. It is further

M/S TELERADIOLOGY SOLUTIONS PVT LTD vs. DY.COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX

Bench: The Hon’Ble Mr.Justice Aravind Kumar

2. Petitioner is seeking for a writ of mandamus to direct third respondent to consider the application for stay dated 28.04.2014 (Annexure-E) and to restrain the respondents from initiating recovery proceedings pursuant to notice of demand dated 20.03.2014 3 (Annexure-C) issued under Section 156 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (‘Act’ for short) during pendency of the appeal

M/S TELERADIOLOGY SOLUTIONS PVT LTD vs. DY.COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX

Bench: The Hon’Ble Mr.Justice Aravind Kumar

2. Petitioner is seeking for a writ of mandamus to direct third respondent to consider the application for stay dated 28.04.2014 (Annexure-E) and to restrain the respondents from initiating recovery proceedings pursuant to notice of demand dated 19.03.2014 3 (Annexure-C) issued under Section 156 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (‘Act’ for short) during pendency of the appeal

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

Bench: S.SUJATHA,VINEET KOTHARI

2 Godhra Electricity Co. Ltd Vs. CIT 225 ITR 746 (SC) 04-11 13 CIT Vs. Chemosyn Ltd 371 ITR 427 (Bom) 75-79 14 Poorna Electric Supply Co. Ltd Vs. CIT [1965] 56 ITR 521 (SC) 80-85 17 CIT Vs. Chamanlal Mangaldas & Co. 39 ITR 8 (SC) 101-104 18 CIT Vs. Chamanlal Mangaldas

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

Bench: S.SUJATHA,VINEET KOTHARI

2 Godhra Electricity Co. Ltd Vs. CIT 225 ITR 746 (SC) 04-11 13 CIT Vs. Chemosyn Ltd 371 ITR 427 (Bom) 75-79 14 Poorna Electric Supply Co. Ltd Vs. CIT [1965] 56 ITR 521 (SC) 80-85 17 CIT Vs. Chamanlal Mangaldas & Co. 39 ITR 8 (SC) 101-104 18 CIT Vs. Chamanlal Mangaldas