M/S THE KARNATAKA STATE CO-OPERATIVE APEX BANK vs. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX

In the result, the appeal is disposed of

Bench: ALOK ARADHE,HEMANT CHANDANGOUDAR

246 and 264. The aforesaid Explanation was deleted by Finance Act, 1999 with effect from 01.06.1999. The effect of the deletion is that intimation under Section 143(1) of the 11 Act ceases to be an order for the purposes of Section 264 of the Act. The Supreme Court in RAJESH JHAVERI supra has held that an intimation under Section

THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, vs. M/S BAHUBALI NEMINATH MUTTIN,

The appeals are dismissed

Bench: ANAND BYRAREDDY,RAGHVENDRA S.CHAUHAN

Disallowance under Section 40A (3) of the I.T. Act being undisclosed income Rs.24,216/- (v) Gross profit on suppressed sales being undisclosed income at Rs.19,45,509/- (vi) Addition on account of cessation of liability under Section 41 (1) of the I.T. Act at Rs.2,37,818/-. 3. The assessee had filed an appeal before the Commissioner of Income

M/S T T K PRESTIGE LTD vs. THE UNION OF INDIA REPTD BY ITS FINANCE SECRETARY

Bench: The Hon’Ble Mr.Justice P.B. Bajanthri W.P. No.26037/2005 C/W W.P.No.4464/2007 & W.P.No.27087/2005(It)

246 List I and Entry 17 No.82 deals with Taxes on income other than Agriculture income. 7. Learned counsel for the petitioners further submitted that on perusal of the compilations of various provisions, it is evident that fringe benefits is not included in the definition of income under ‘Sub-section 24 of Section 2 whereas Sub-section 43 relates

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

COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX III vs. M/S HASSAN HAJEE & CO

The appeal is allowed to the aforesaid extent

Bench: S.SUJATHA,JAYANT PATEL

246 of the Income Tax Act (‘the Act’ for short). The Appellate Commissioner while adjudicating the appeal issued show cause notice under Section 251(2) of the Act for enhancement of tax liability. After hearing both the parties, the Appellate Commissioner enhanced the tax liability by setting aside the order passed by the Assessing Officer in respect of payments made

THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX vs. HASSAN HAJEE & CO

Bench: ARAVIND KUMAR,MOHAN M. SHANTANAGOUDAR

246 of the Income Tax Act (‘the Act’ for short). The Appellate Commissioner while adjudicating the appeal issued show cause notice under Section 251(2) of the Act for enhancement of tax liability. After hearing both 6 the parties, the Appellate Commissioner enhanced the tax liability by setting aside the order passed by the Assessing Officer in respect of payments

THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX vs. KARNATAKA STATE BEVERAGES CORPORATION

Bench: P.S.DINESH KUMAR,JAYANT PATEL

Section 24 of the Karnataka Excise Act, 1965 is illegal. 6. The respondent-Company filed respective writ petitions before the learned Single Judge challenging the aforesaid assessment orders for the respective years passed by the Assessment Officer and prayed to declare disallowance of the privilege fee in the assessment year as in violation of the powers of the State

THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX vs. M/S KARNATAKA STATE BEVERAGES CORPORATION LIMITED

Bench: P.S.DINESH KUMAR,JAYANT PATEL

Section 24 of the Karnataka Excise Act, 1965 is illegal. 6. The respondent-Company filed respective writ petitions before the learned Single Judge challenging the aforesaid assessment orders for the respective years passed by the Assessment Officer and prayed to declare disallowance of the privilege fee in the assessment year as in violation of the powers of the State

THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX vs. SRI.B.KUMAR GOWDA MINE OWNERS

Bench: B.V.NAGARATHNA,B.A.PATIL

SECTION 260A OF THE INCOME TAX ACT PRAYING TO ALLOW THE APPEAL AND TO SET ASIDE THE ORDER DATED 28/08/2014 PASSED IN I.T.A.NO.1053/(BANG)/2012 ON THE FILE OF THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, BANGALORE BENCH-A, BANGALORE, INSOFAR AS UPHOLDING THE DELETION OF DISALLOWANCE OF EXPENSES OF LITIGATION IS CONCERNED BY CONFIRMING THE ORDER DATED 06/06/2012 PASSED

THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX vs. M/S BPL SANYO FINANCE LTD

In the result, the appeal filed by the revenue is

Bench: The Tribunal Was Arising From The Order Dated 4Th June 2004 Passed By The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) Bangalore (For Short “The

disallowed in computing the total income of such person as a result thereof, shall for the purposes of clause (c) of this sub-section, be deemed to represent the income in respect of which particulars have been concealed. 24. In this connection, at this stage, we would like to refer to the judgment of the Supreme Court in K.P.Madhusudan

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

Bench: S.SUJATHA,VINEET KOTHARI

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

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