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

4. Learned counsel for the revenue fairly submitted that the first substantial question of law does not arise for consideration in this appeal. However, with regard to the third substantial question of law, it is submitted that the Tribunal has not considered whether the depreciation policies of the assessee are similar to that of comparables and has not given independent

COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX vs. SHRI D M PURNESH

Bench: ALOK ARADHE,RAVI V HOSMANI

disallowing the assessment made by the Assessing Authority to tax amount of Rs.1,12,745/- under the head “Income of other sources”. Even when the Assessing Authority rightly observed that the assessee had not furnished any proof with regard to foreign tour undertaken by the assessee during the year except that the amount was spent by M/s Classic Coffee

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

In the result, the findings

Bench: ALOK ARADHE,R. NATARAJ

4. The assessee thereupon filed an appeal before the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) on the issue with regard to set off, of brought forward business loss and validity of the notice under Section 6 148 of the Act. The Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) by an order dated 12.03.2008 dismissed the appeal preferred by the assessee. The assessee thereupon

BIOCON LIMITED vs. THE DEPUTY

In the result, the impugned order dated 30

Bench: ALOK ARADHE,R. NATARAJ

4) on commercial profits and therefore, reducing profits on a notional basis, attributing some profits to the expenses eligible for weighted reduction under Section 35(2AB), amounts to tinkering with the formula. It is also urged that the Tribunal grossly erred in relying on Section 14A of the Act to uphold the disallowance. It is further submitted that Section

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

4. Learned counsel for the revenue submitted that the Assessing Officer had disallowed the portion of stamp duty relating to issue of fresh share capital through IPO amounting to Rs.6,87,770/- as the same was capital in nature and was not a revenue expenditure. It is further submitted that the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) had accepted the aforesaid

THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX GULBARGA vs. M/S MANJUNATHA COTTON AND GINNING FACTORY

The appeals are dismissed

Bench: ARAVIND KUMAR,N.KUMAR

250/-. The assessee during the course of survey declared Rs.17,03,731/- as income representing cessation of liabilities towards creditors. In the 10 course of the assessment proceedings, the assessee was asked to file confirmation letter in respect of the creditor M/s. Sri.Gururaghavendra Cotton Ginning Factory, Bellary against whom Rs.1,00,000/- credit balance was outstanding. The assessee was requested

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

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. 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

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

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

Bench: N.KUMAR,RATHNAKALA

4. The assessee preferred an appeal to the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), which came to be dismissed. 5. It is against the said order, the assessee preferred an appeal to the Tribunal. The Tribunal on reconsideration of the entire material on record held that the assessee had filed the return of income declaring loss. Thereafter the claim for write

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

4. Learned Senior counsel for the assessee submitted that in the case of the assessee there is no original assessment for the same Assessment Year and the an intimation under Section 143(1) of the Act was issued to the assessee. The said intimation under Section 143(1) of the Act is not an order of assessment and therefore

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

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

Bench: S.SUJATHA,VINEET KOTHARI

4 CIT Vs. Pompie Tile Works 175 ITR 1 (Kar) 17-19A 5 CTI Vs. Dharma Productions (P) Ltd 153 ITR 105 (Bom) 20-27 6 Raja Bejoy Singh Dudhuria Vs. CIT 1 ITR 135 (Privy Council) 28-31 9 CIT Vs. Nagarbail Salt-Owners Co-Op Society Ltd 291 CTR 287 (Kar) 48-53 22 DCIT

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

Bench: S.SUJATHA,VINEET KOTHARI

4 CIT Vs. Pompie Tile Works 175 ITR 1 (Kar) 17-19A 5 CTI Vs. Dharma Productions (P) Ltd 153 ITR 105 (Bom) 20-27 6 Raja Bejoy Singh Dudhuria Vs. CIT 1 ITR 135 (Privy Council) 28-31 9 CIT Vs. Nagarbail Salt-Owners Co-Op Society Ltd 291 CTR 287 (Kar) 48-53 22 DCIT

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