THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, vs. M/S CORPORATION BANK

In the result, the third substantial question of law is also answered

Bench: ALOK ARADHE,H.T. NARENDRA PRASAD

250/- was declared. The revised return was processed under Section 143(1) of the Act o 15.06.2012 and a refund of 4 Rs.133,39,33,970/- was granted. Subsequently, the assessee filed a second revised return on 11.01.2013 in which income of Rs.1367,59,11,162/- was admitted. The Assessing Officer vide order dated 19.02.2013 made an addition on account

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

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

In the result, the findings

Bench: ALOK ARADHE,R. NATARAJ

disallowed the claim of set off of brought forward loss. It is also pointed out that proviso to Section 72(i) was omitted by Finance act, 1999 with effect from 01.04.2000 and for the impugned assessment year 2003-04, the assessee was not required to carry on the business for the purpose of set off of brought forward business loss

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

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

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

6. Learned counsel for the revenue, with regard to claim of the assessee for deduction under Section 10A of the Act has submitted that the assessee is not engaged in export and is neither engaged in computer software and the sale proceeds of such exports have not been brought into India in convertible foreign exchange. Therefore, the provisions of Section

THE PR COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX vs. SHRI H NAGARAJA

Bench: S SUNIL DUTT YADAV,B.S PATIL

disallowed Rs.2 Crores, and therefore, the assessment order passed merged with the appellate order; hence, in view of the judgment of the High Court in the case of DCIT Vs VARMA INDUSTRIAL LTD. – (2001) 250 ITR 472 (KAR), the Revisional Commissioner could not have exercised jurisdiction under Section 263 of the Act to revise the said items

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

disallowances to the tune of Rs.17,96,250/- were made and demand of Rs.9,85,514/- was made on the assessee. Thereafter, the Commissioner of Income Tax invoked the powers under Section 263 of the Act and a show cause notice dated 23.10.2007 was issued by the Commissioner of Income Tax. In the notice, it was stated that the order

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

6. We have considered the rival submissions made at the bar and have perused the record. The Explanation to Section 143 of the Act prior to 01.06.1999 reads as under: "Explanation - An intimation sent to the assessee under sub-Section (1) or sub- Section (1B) shall be deemed to be an order for the purposes of Sections

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 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 COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX vs. M/S MWP LTD

Bench: N.KUMAR,RATHNAKALA

6. Aggrieved by the said order, the Revenue is in appeal. 7. The learned Counsel for the Revenue assailing the impugned order contended that though the assessee knew that the diminution in the value of the investment is not allowable under the Income Tax Act, still the claim was made. It is only during Section 143(3) proceedings, when explanation

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

Bench: S.SUJATHA,VINEET KOTHARI

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, Vs. T. Jayachandran Civil Appeal No.4341 of 2018 dated 24.04.2018 (SC) (2018) 406 ITR 1 SC) 123-137 23 CIT Vs. Sunil J Kinariwala

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

Bench: S.SUJATHA,VINEET KOTHARI

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, Vs. T. Jayachandran Civil Appeal No.4341 of 2018 dated 24.04.2018 (SC) (2018) 406 ITR 1 SC) 123-137 23 CIT Vs. Sunil J Kinariwala

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