THE COMMISSIONER OF vs. M/S ABB INDIA LTD

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

Section 147 of the Act dated 19.12.2013 on the ground that deduction was allowed inadvertently is not sustainable. 12. In substance, Shri Suryanarayana's argument is, the AO had accepted the explanation and passed the assessment order. Therefore, the deductions allowed previously could not be disallowed subsequently on the ground that the same were inadvertently allowed. In support

THE RADDI SAHAKAR BANK NIYAMIT vs. ADDITIONAL/ASSISTNAT COMMISSIONER OFM INCOME TAX

Bench: The Hon'Ble Mr Justice M.I.Arun

SECTION 244 OF INCOME TAX ACT, 1961 BEING EXCESSIVELY RECOVERED AMOUNT AS PER FORM 26AS (ANNEXURE-F) WHICH IS ABOVE 20 PERCENT OF OUTSTANDING DEMAND OF RS.7,66,37,670/- I.E. RS.2,71,55,570/- MINUS RS.1,53,27,534/-); C) DIRECT RESPONDENT NOS.1 AND 4 (ASSESSING OFFICERS) TO CONSIDER ISSUES REMANDED VIDE ORDER DATED 31/07/20 IN ITA NO. 2527/BANG/2017

THE PR. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX vs. M/S FIBRES AND FABRICS INTERNATIONAL PVT. LTD.,

In the result, we do not find any merit in this

Bench: ALOK ARADHE,HEMANT CHANDANGOUDAR

244 (SC). 7. We have considered the rival submissions made on both sides and have perused the record. The Supreme Court in KALYANJI MAVJI & CO. supra held as under: "13. On a combined review of the decisions of this Court the following tests and principles would apply to determine the applicability of Section 34(1)(b) to the following categories

THE PR. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX vs. M/S KIDS KEMP

In the result, the appeal fails and is hereby dismissed

Bench: ALOK ARADHE,HEMANT CHANDANGOUDAR

Section 154 of the Act, rectified the assessment and disallowed the unabsorbed assessment of depreciation of the Assessment Years 1997-98 to 2001-02. The assessee filed an appeal before the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) who by an order dated 29.02.2016 allowed the appeal on merits but did not adjudicate the issue with regard to jurisdiction raised

SMT M. R. PRABHAVATHY vs. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER

In the result, the appeal fails and is hereby dismissed

Bench: ARAVIND KUMAR,E.S.INDIRESH

Section 154 of the Act, rectified the assessment and disallowed the unabsorbed assessment of depreciation of the Assessment Years 1997-98 to 2001-02. The assessee filed an appeal before the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) who by an order dated 29.02.2016 allowed the appeal on merits but did not adjudicate the issue with regard to jurisdiction raised

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

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

SMT JAMUNA VERNEKAR vs. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX

In the result, the impugned order of the tribunal dated

Bench: ALOK ARADHE,R. NATARAJ

Section 2(22)(e) of the Act. Thus, the appeal preferred by the assessee was allowed. Being aggrieved by the aforesaid order of the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), the revenue filed an appeal before the Tribunal. The Tribunal, by an order dated 31.08.2012, allowed the appeal preferred 6 the revenue. In the aforesaid factual background, the appeal has been