M/S NANDI STEELS LIMITED vs. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX

In the result, the findings

Bench: ALOK ARADHE,R. NATARAJ

1)(i) and (ii) of the Act. It is also argued that Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) as well as the 9 tribunal has confirmed the disallowance or reasons other than the reasons for which the Assessing Officer disallowed the claim of set off of brought forward loss. It is also pointed out that proviso to Section

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

250 ITR 193 (SC), and 'ACIT VS. 9 RAJESH JHAVERI STOCK BROKERS P. LTD.', (2007) 291 ITR 500 (SC). 5. On the other hand, learned counsel for the revenue submitted that if an assessee discovers any omission or any wrong statement, he may furnish a revised return under Section 139(5) of the Act within the time limit prescribed therein

THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX vs. M/S. ASTRA ZENECA PHARMA

In the result, the order passed by the

Bench: ALOK ARADHE,HEMANT CHANDANGOUDAR

disallowed 100% depreciation on pollution control equipments amounting to Rs.4,93,00,000/-. The assessing officer also taxed the notional income on the amount of loan advanced to Madhya Pradesh State Electricity Board. The said order was subject matter of challenge before the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals). The Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) by an order dated 30.08.2010 held

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

Bench: N.KUMAR,RATHNAKALA

Section 271(1)(c) of the Act, was the subject matter of interpretation by this Court in the case of COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX Vs. MANJUNATHA COTTON & GINNING FACTORY reported in (2013) 35 TAXMANN.COM 250 (KARNATAKA). Interpreting the deeming provisions it has been held as under: “48. As the opening words of Explanation 1 makes it clear where in respect

COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-III vs. M/S. ONMOBILE GLOBAL LTD

In the result, the matter is remitted to the Tribunal to

Bench: ALOK ARADHE,R. NATARAJ

250 (BOMBAY) and the Division 11 Bench of Bombay High Court held that the stamp duty paid on debenture issue was an allowable item of deduction under Section 35D of the Act. Therefore, in the light of aforesaid decision of Bombay High Court, the conclusion of the Tribunal with regard to allowance of deduction of stamp duty does not call

PR COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-5 vs. M/S NOVELL SOFTWARE DEVELOPMENT (INDIA) PVT.LTD.

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

Bench: ALOK ARADHE,R. NATARAJ

disallowance made under Section 14A of the Act as the assessee had not incurred any exempt income. In support of aforesaid submissions, reliance has been placed on the decision of the Supreme Court in 'CIT Vs. CHETTINAD LOGISTICS (P) LTD.' (2018) 95 TAXMANN.COM 250 (SC), decisions of Madras High Court in 'CIT Vs. CHITTANAD LOGISTICS (P) LTD.' (2017) 80 TAXMANN.COM

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

Bench: S.SUJATHA,VINEET KOTHARI

1 CIT Vs. Shoorji Vallabhdas & Co. 46 ITR 144 (SC) 01-03 2 Godhra Electricity Co. Ltd Vs. CIT 225 ITR 746 (SC) 04-11 13 CIT Vs. Chemosyn Ltd 371 ITR 427 (Bom) 75-79 14 Poorna Electric Supply Co. Ltd Vs. CIT [1965] 56 ITR 521 (SC) 80-85 17 CIT Vs. Chamanlal Mangaldas

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

Bench: S.SUJATHA,VINEET KOTHARI

1 CIT Vs. Shoorji Vallabhdas & Co. 46 ITR 144 (SC) 01-03 2 Godhra Electricity Co. Ltd Vs. CIT 225 ITR 746 (SC) 04-11 13 CIT Vs. Chemosyn Ltd 371 ITR 427 (Bom) 75-79 14 Poorna Electric Supply Co. Ltd Vs. CIT [1965] 56 ITR 521 (SC) 80-85 17 CIT Vs. Chamanlal Mangaldas

THE PR COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX vs. SHRI H NAGARAJA

Bench: S SUNIL DUTT YADAV,B.S PATIL

disallowed the expenses claimed by the assessee under the heads, ‘labour charges’, ‘expenses of commission’ and ‘work in progress’, with a direction to the Assessing Officer to enhance the total income in terms of the findings recorded by him. The 3 Assessing Officer had been further directed by the Commissioner to initiate penalty proceedings under Section 271(1

THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX vs. M/S SHAMANUR KALLAPPA AND SONS

The appeal is dismissed

Bench: B.VEERAPPA,N.KUMAR

disallowed the said claim on the ground that the STC had declared loss. In other words, they had not earned any profit out of such exports. Secondly on the ground that deduction under Section 80HHC of the Act is permissible only when the realization is in foreign exchange. Aggrieved by the said order, the assessee preferred an appeal

BIOCON LIMITED vs. THE DEPUTY

In the result, the impugned order dated 30

Bench: ALOK ARADHE,R. NATARAJ

1. The Tribunal was right in holding that the appellant was not entitled to deduction under Section 35(2AB) of the Act to the extent the expenses eligible for deduction under the said provisions pertained to unit entitled for deduction under Section 10B of the Act? 3 2. The Tribunal was right in holding that Section

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

The appeal is dismissed

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

Section 250 read with 254 of the IT Act, the CIT(Appeals) partly allowed the appeal. The assessee challenged the same in ITA No.1143/Bang/2010 for the A.Y.2004-05, before the ITAT and the same has been allowed in part by the impugned order. 4. Revenue has framed following questions in this appeal: 1 ' IT Act ' for short 2 Commissioner of Income

LANGDON & SEAH CONSULTING INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED

The appeal is dismissed

Bench: VINEET KOTHARI

Section 250 read with 254 of the IT Act, the CIT(Appeals) partly allowed the appeal. The assessee challenged the same in ITA No.1143/Bang/2010 for the A.Y.2004-05, before the ITAT and the same has been allowed in part by the impugned order. 4. Revenue has framed following questions in this appeal: 1 ' IT Act ' for short 2 Commissioner of Income

COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX vs. SHRI D M PURNESH

Bench: ALOK ARADHE,RAVI V HOSMANI

1)(IV) of the Act and 45(3) of the Act? iv) Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal is right in law in setting aside the disallowance made in respect of long term capital asset even when the land in question was not an agricultural land and same is rightly treated as capital

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

In the result the substantial questions of law are

Bench: ALOK ARADHE,R. NATARAJ

1) of the Act. Thereafter, the case of the assessee was selected for 4 scrutiny. The assessment was completed under Section 143(3)of the Act by the Assessing Officer by order dated 14.06.2005 and disallowances to the tune of Rs.17,96,250

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