THE PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER vs. M/S OBULAPURAM MINING

Bench: K.SOMASHEKAR,UMESH M ADIGA

6 ITR 414 (Privy Council), wherein it is held that in view of these express provisions of the Act. It is in their Lordships opinion quite impossible to suppose that the ITO may in every kind of circumstance and after any lapse of time make fresh assessment or issue fresh notice of demand or that the CIT can direct

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

Bench: The Hon’Ble Mr.Justice Aravind Kumar

disallowed in the re-assessment proceedings framed. Consequently, demand notice came to be issued under Section 156 of the Act on 20.03.2014 (Annexure-C). 4. Assessee being aggrieved by the same has filed an appeal before CIT (Appeals) III – third respondent along with an application for stay of the 5 demand vide Annexures-D and E respectively. In the meanwhile

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

Bench: The Hon’Ble Mr.Justice Aravind Kumar

disallowed in the re-assessment proceedings framed. Consequently, demand notice came to be issued under Section 156 of the Act on 19.03.2014 (Annexure-C). 4. Assessee being aggrieved by the same has filed an appeal before CIT (Appeals) III – third respondent along with an application for stay of the 5 demand vide Annexures-D and E respectively. In the meanwhile

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

Bench: The Hon’Ble Mr.Justice Aravind Kumar

disallowed by order dated 19.03.2014 4 (Annexure-B) followed by issuance of demand notice dated 19.03.2014 (Annexure-C). 4. Assessee being aggrieved by the same has filed an appeal before CIT (Appeals) III – third respondent along with an application for stay of the demand vide Annexures-D and E respectively. In the meanwhile, assessee filed an application under Section 220

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

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

disallowed the provision for interest payable on deposits and has made certain additions. It is held that no deduction could be allowed under Section 80P of the Act on the ground that the petitioner has transacted with nominal members and that its interest on investments was taxable under the head ‘Income from other Sources’. 4. As against the assessment order

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

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

The appeals stand disposed of, accordingly

Bench: N.KUMAR,B.SREENIVASE GOWDA

Section 145A of the Income- tax Act which was inserted with effect from assessment year 1999-2000. The said provision states that the valuation of stock should include the amount of any tax duty, cess or fee - 94 - actually paid or incurred to bring the goods to its present location and condition. The Department has followed a consistent stand

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

The appeals stand disposed of, accordingly

Bench: N.KUMAR,B.SREENIVASE GOWDA

Section 145A of the Income- tax Act which was inserted with effect from assessment year 1999-2000. The said provision states that the valuation of stock should include the amount of any tax duty, cess or fee - 94 - actually paid or incurred to bring the goods to its present location and condition. The Department has followed a consistent stand

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

Bench: S.SUJATHA,VINEET KOTHARI

6 Raja Bejoy Singh Dudhuria Vs. CIT 1 ITR 135 (Privy Council) 28-31 9 CIT Vs. Nagarbail Salt-Owners Co-Op Society Ltd 291 CTR 287 (Kar) 48-53 22 DCIT, Vs. T. Jayachandran Civil Appeal No.4341 of 2018 dated 24.04.2018 (SC) (2018) 406 ITR 1 SC) 123-137 23 CIT Vs. Sunil J Kinariwala

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

Bench: S.SUJATHA,VINEET KOTHARI

6 Raja Bejoy Singh Dudhuria Vs. CIT 1 ITR 135 (Privy Council) 28-31 9 CIT Vs. Nagarbail Salt-Owners Co-Op Society Ltd 291 CTR 287 (Kar) 48-53 22 DCIT, Vs. T. Jayachandran Civil Appeal No.4341 of 2018 dated 24.04.2018 (SC) (2018) 406 ITR 1 SC) 123-137 23 CIT Vs. Sunil J Kinariwala