CHITTHARANJAN A DASANNACHARYA vs. THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-V

In the result, the appeal is allowed

Bench: ALOK ARADHE,H.T. NARENDRA PRASAD

disallowed. The assessee thereupon approached the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) who by an order dated 31.10.2011 dismissed the appeal on merits. However, the interest levied under Section 234B

M/S A Y GARMENTS INTERNATIONAL PRIVATE LTD vs. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX

In the result, the appeal is allowed

Bench: ALOK ARADHE,M.NAGAPRASANNA

234B and 234C of the Act on the facts and circumstances of the case? 2. Facts leading to filing of the appeal briefly stated are that the assessee is a private limited company carrying on the business of manufacture and export of ready made garments. The assessee for the Assessment year 2005-06 filed the return of income

M/S GRANITE MART LIMITED vs. THE INCOME-TAX OFFICER

In the result the order passed by the

Bench: ALOK ARADHE,M.NAGAPRASANNA

234B and 234C of the Act on the facts and circumstance of the case? 2. Since, in all the appeals common questions of law arise for consideration, they were heard analogously and are being decided by this common judgment. 7 I.T.A.NO.28/2011 3. The appellant filed its return of income for the assessment year 2005-06 and declared total income

M/S MAYA VENTURES PRIVATE LIMITED vs. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-4(1)(2),

The appeal is allowed

Bench: SATISH CHANDRA SHARMA,V SRISHANANDA

disallowing payment of Rs.65 Lakhs paid to the landlord towards the land expenses. 2.2. The facts further reveal that the appellant- Company has entered into a Joint Development Agreement dated 10.06.2004 with one Mr. D. Ramesh, the landlord for development of residential apartments measuring 2 acres and 7 guntas in Sy. No.70 of Jaraganahalli, Bangalore. The property in question

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

The appeals are allowed

Bench: N.KUMAR,H.S.KEMPANNA

234B & 234C of the Income Tax Act. 15. The Appellate authority held, since there was search on 21.10.2003, a notice under Section 153A had to be issued and, earlier when returns filed by him was beyond the period prescribed, a notice under Section 148 and/or 153A was ordered and, therefore, the contention that reopening of the assessment is not valid

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

The appeals are allowed

Bench: N.KUMAR,H.S.KEMPANNA

234B & 234C of the Income Tax Act. 15. The Appellate authority held, since there was search on 21.10.2003, a notice under Section 153A had to be issued and, earlier when returns filed by him was beyond the period prescribed, a notice under Section 148 and/or 153A was ordered and, therefore, the contention that reopening of the assessment is not valid

COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX vs. S.PARVATHI MADHAVA

The appeals are allowed

Bench: N.KUMAR,H.S.KEMPANNA

234B & 234C of the Income Tax Act. 15. The Appellate authority held, since there was search on 21.10.2003, a notice under Section 153A had to be issued and, earlier when returns filed by him was beyond the period prescribed, a notice under Section 148 and/or 153A was ordered and, therefore, the contention that reopening of the assessment is not valid

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

The appeals are allowed

Bench: N.KUMAR,H.S.KEMPANNA

234B & 234C of the Income Tax Act. 15. The Appellate authority held, since there was search on 21.10.2003, a notice under Section 153A had to be issued and, earlier when returns filed by him was beyond the period prescribed, a notice under Section 148 and/or 153A was ordered and, therefore, the contention that reopening of the assessment is not valid

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

The appeals are allowed

Bench: N.KUMAR,H.S.KEMPANNA

234B & 234C of the Income Tax Act. 15. The Appellate authority held, since there was search on 21.10.2003, a notice under Section 153A had to be issued and, earlier when returns filed by him was beyond the period prescribed, a notice under Section 148 and/or 153A was ordered and, therefore, the contention that reopening of the assessment is not valid

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

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

The appeals stand disposed of, accordingly

Bench: N.KUMAR,B.SREENIVASE GOWDA

disallowed on the ground that the DTAA with USA and Canada shows that the claim is admissible only for the taxes paid under Income Tax Act in India and Federal tax in USA and Canada. In coming to the said conclusion the authorities have failed to notice Section 91 of the Act. Statutorily the assessee would be entitled to deduction

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

The appeals stand disposed of, accordingly

Bench: N.KUMAR,B.SREENIVASE GOWDA

disallowed on the ground that the DTAA with USA and Canada shows that the claim is admissible only for the taxes paid under Income Tax Act in India and Federal tax in USA and Canada. In coming to the said conclusion the authorities have failed to notice Section 91 of the Act. Statutorily the assessee would be entitled to deduction

M/S TRIMM EXPORTS PRIVATE LIMITED vs. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX

In the result, the order dated 08

Bench: ALOK ARADHE,HEMANT CHANDANGOUDAR

234B and 234C of the Act, 1961 on the facts and circumstances of the case? 2. Facts leading to filing of this appeal briefly stated are that the appellant is a private limited company registered under the Companies Act, 1956 engaged in the business of printing and finishing of silk sarees and fabrics. The assessee filed its return of income

M/S BRIGADE PLAZA UNIT OWNERS ASSOCIATION vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER

The appeal stands dismissed

Bench: SATISH CHANDRA SHARMA,V SRISHANANDA

disallowance claimed by the assessee to the tune of Rs.22,14,270/- under exempt income 4 category and assessed tax under Sections 234A and 234B

M/S NITESH vs. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER

In the result, the following:

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

disallowance of Rs.28,83,17,552/- being deduction claimed on interest/redemption premium on debentures on the facts and circumstances of the case. ii) Whether the Tribunal was justified in law in holding that the liability to pay interest/redemption premium of Rs.28,83,17,552/- has not crystallized during the year and consequently passed a perverse order on the facts

XIAOMI TECHNOLOGY INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX

In the result, I pass the following:

Bench: The Hon'Ble Mr.Justice S.R.Krishna Kumar

disallowed. On 10.08.2022, petitioner submitted a detailed response along with documents and contested the said Notice and proceedings. - 6 - 2.3 On 11.08.2022, upon obtaining approval from the 3rd respondent, the 1st respondent passed the impugned order under Section 281B of the I.T.Act provisionally attaching the subject fixed deposits of the petitioner in a sum of INR 3,700 crores

M/S T T K PRESTIGE LTD vs. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX

Bench: The Hon’Ble Mrs.Justice S.Sujatha

Section 114[e] of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872. Merely if the assessment order is silent or does not record the reasons, would not lead to the conclusion of non - 56 - application of mind by the AO. On the contrary, it is a presumption that the AO has applied his mind to all the material facts available at the time

THE PR COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX vs. M/S BHARAT INFRA TECH (P) LTD.,

The appeals are dismissed

Bench: N S SANJAY GOWDA,S SUNIL DUTT YADAV

SECTION 260A OF THE INCOME TAX ACT, 1961, PRAYING TO: (I) FORMULATE THE SUBSTANTIAL QUESTIONS OF LAW STATED ABOVE; (II) ALLOW THE APPEAL AND SET ASIDE THE ORDERS PASSED BY THE INCOME-TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, BENGALURU IN I.T.A. NO.1442/BANG/2014 DATED 19.01.2018 VIDE ANNEXURE-C CONFIRMING THE ORDER OF THE APPELLATE COMMISSIONER AND CONFIRM THE ORDER PASSED BY THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER