COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX vs. S.MADHAVA, M/S BELLARY STEEL ROLING MILLS,

The appeals are allowed

Bench: N.KUMAR,H.S.KEMPANNA

disallowed, because the whole transactions of sale of diamonds is treated as fictitious and manipulated transactions. The Tribunal relied on the judgments of the Tribunals to the effect of treating the proceeds of fictitious diamond sales as unexplained - 25 - credits in the hands of the assessee. Accordingly, the assessing authority treated the amounts received on sale of diamonds as unexplained

COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX vs. S.MADHAVA (HUF)

The appeals are allowed

Bench: N.KUMAR,H.S.KEMPANNA

disallowed, because the whole transactions of sale of diamonds is treated as fictitious and manipulated transactions. The Tribunal relied on the judgments of the Tribunals to the effect of treating the proceeds of fictitious diamond sales as unexplained - 25 - credits in the hands of the assessee. Accordingly, the assessing authority treated the amounts received on sale of diamonds as unexplained

COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX vs. S.MADHAVA (HUF)

The appeals are allowed

Bench: N.KUMAR,H.S.KEMPANNA

disallowed, because the whole transactions of sale of diamonds is treated as fictitious and manipulated transactions. The Tribunal relied on the judgments of the Tribunals to the effect of treating the proceeds of fictitious diamond sales as unexplained - 25 - credits in the hands of the assessee. Accordingly, the assessing authority treated the amounts received on sale of diamonds as unexplained

COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX vs. S.MADHAVA, M/S BELLARY STEEL ROLING MILLS,

The appeals are allowed

Bench: N.KUMAR,H.S.KEMPANNA

disallowed, because the whole transactions of sale of diamonds is treated as fictitious and manipulated transactions. The Tribunal relied on the judgments of the Tribunals to the effect of treating the proceeds of fictitious diamond sales as unexplained - 25 - credits in the hands of the assessee. Accordingly, the assessing authority treated the amounts received on sale of diamonds as unexplained

COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX vs. S.PARVATHI MADHAVA

The appeals are allowed

Bench: N.KUMAR,H.S.KEMPANNA

disallowed, because the whole transactions of sale of diamonds is treated as fictitious and manipulated transactions. The Tribunal relied on the judgments of the Tribunals to the effect of treating the proceeds of fictitious diamond sales as unexplained - 25 - credits in the hands of the assessee. Accordingly, the assessing authority treated the amounts received on sale of diamonds as unexplained

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

In the result, the appeal is hereby dismissed

Bench: ALOK ARADHE,R. NATARAJ

Section 14A are satisfied in the case of assessee to attract such a disallowance? 2. Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal is right in law in setting aside the disallowance of valuation of loss on HTM Securities amounting to Rs.151,48,15,234

M/S SUBEX LIMITED vs. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF

Appeal is allowed

Bench: P.S.DINESH KUMAR,M G UMA

disallowance of deduction of Rs.9,53,10,234/- being the sale of hardware component from export turnover under Section 10A of the Act. This

THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX vs. M/S SHRIRAM CHITS

Appeal is allowed

Bench: ARAVIND KUMAR,JAYANT PATEL

disallowance of deduction of Rs.9,53,10,234/- being the sale of hardware component from export turnover under Section 10A of the Act. This

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

The Appeal is partly allowed

Bench: B.MANOHAR,N.KUMAR

234(b) of the Act. The Assessing Authority over- ruling all those contentions framed an assessment order. Aggrieved by the same, the assessee preferred an appeal. The Appellate Authority /Commissioner of Income-Tax (Appeals), dismissed the appeal. Aggrieved by the same, the assessee preferred an appeal before the Tribunal which granted relief on all those grounds. Aggrieved by the same

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

Bench: S.SUJATHA,VINEET KOTHARI

234 held that Section 254(1) of the Act empowers the Date of Judgment :23-07-2018 I.T.A.No.512/2017 M/s. Fidelity Business Services India Pvt. Ltd., Vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income-Tax, & Anr. 73/86 Tribunal to recall its previous Order where the Assessee could not be present at the time of hearing and hear the Appeal again on merits even

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

Bench: S.SUJATHA,VINEET KOTHARI

234-239 40 CIT Vs. Patuck 71 ITR 713 (Bom) 246-256 Date of Judgment 25-09-2018 I.T.A.No.155/2016 and connected matters The Pr. Commissioner of Income Tax & Ors. Vs. M/s. Chamundi Winery and Distillery 98/137 Sl.No CASE LAWS ON BUSINESS EXPENDITURE UNDER SECTION 37 OF THE ACT. Page No 7 CIT Vs. Rajasthan State Government Sugar Mills

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

Bench: S.SUJATHA,VINEET KOTHARI

234-239 40 CIT Vs. Patuck 71 ITR 713 (Bom) 246-256 Date of Judgment 25-09-2018 I.T.A.No.155/2016 and connected matters The Pr. Commissioner of Income Tax & Ors. Vs. M/s. Chamundi Winery and Distillery 98/137 Sl.No CASE LAWS ON BUSINESS EXPENDITURE UNDER SECTION 37 OF THE ACT. Page No 7 CIT Vs. Rajasthan State Government Sugar Mills

THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX vs. M/S ING VYSYA BANK LTD

The appeal is dismissed

Bench: P.S.DINESH KUMAR,C.M. POONACHA

disallowed the same on the ground that the liability is purely contingent and not an ascertained one? 5. Whether the Tribunal was correct in allowing writing off of non-banking assets of Rs.58,24,50,200/- without appreciating the fact that the losses which are contingent in nature cannot be allowed to be written off and charges against the profits

LANGDON & SEAH CONSULTING INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED

The appeal is dismissed

Bench: VINEET KOTHARI

disallowed the same on the ground that the liability is purely contingent and not an ascertained one? 5. Whether the Tribunal was correct in allowing writing off of non-banking assets of Rs.58,24,50,200/- without appreciating the fact that the losses which are contingent in nature cannot be allowed to be written off and charges against the profits

THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX vs. M/S K B D SUGARS & DISTILLERIES LTD.,

Bench: S.SUJATHA,VINEET SARAN

234/-, were set 3 off against the above income. Out of the aforesaid business loss of amalgamating company, which was set off against the income of the respondent-amalgamated company for the relevant assessment year, the Assessing Officer disallowed the business loss and unabsorbed depreciation amounting to Rs.3,48,87,613/- as the same was the business loss from

SHRI NARAYAN RAO HEBRI vs. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX

The appeal stands dismissed

Bench: S.G.PANDIT,K. V. ARAVIND

234-C of the Act, which under the facts and in the circumstances of the appellant's case and the same deserves to be cancelled. 5. For the above and other grounds that may be urged at the time of hearing of the appeal, your appellant humbly prays that the appeal may be allowed and Justice rendered." 7.5 The Assessee