M/S FIDELITY BUSINESS SERVICES INDIA PVT LTD vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX

Bench: S.SUJATHA,VINEET KOTHARI

disallowed the depreciation and the High Court affirmed the decision of the Tribunal. On appeal to the Supreme Court: Held, that under Section 254 (1) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, the Appellate Tribunal had no power to take back the benefit conferred by the assessing Officer or enhance the assessment. Since the Assessing Officer had granted depreciation in respect

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

The appeal is allowed to the aforesaid extent

Bench: S.SUJATHA,JAYANT PATEL

disallowed the claim of the assessee to the extent of 20% in respect of cash payment to gang leaders as mentioned supra, which means the Assessing Authority allowed the claim of the assessee to the extent of 80%. 7 Questioning the order passed by the Assessing Authority, the assessee filed appeal No.ITA/174/ CIT(A)/MNG/2006-07 before the Appellate Commissioner

THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX vs. HASSAN HAJEE & CO

Bench: ARAVIND KUMAR,MOHAN M. SHANTANAGOUDAR

disallowed the claim of the assessee to the extent of 20% in respect of cash payment to gang leaders as mentioned supra, which means the Assessing Authority allowed the claim of the assessee to the extent of 80%. Questioning the order passed by the Assessing Authority, the assessee filed appeal No.ITA/174/ CIT(A)/MNG/2006-07 before the Appellate Commissioner under

COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX vs. S.PARVATHI MADHAVA

The appeals are allowed

Bench: N.KUMAR,H.S.KEMPANNA

disallowed because the whole transaction of sale of diamonds is treated as fictitious and manipulated transactions. However, he allowed set off the income declared under VDIS. This factual finding could have been considered by the Appellate Authority on the basis of the material, which was placed before him. Though strictly speaking, he is called the Appellate Authority, in tax jurisprudence

COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX vs. S.MADHAVA, M/S BELLARY STEEL ROLING MILLS,

The appeals are allowed

Bench: N.KUMAR,H.S.KEMPANNA

disallowed because the whole transaction of sale of diamonds is treated as fictitious and manipulated transactions. However, he allowed set off the income declared under VDIS. This factual finding could have been considered by the Appellate Authority on the basis of the material, which was placed before him. Though strictly speaking, he is called the Appellate Authority, in tax jurisprudence

COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX vs. S.MADHAVA, M/S BELLARY STEEL ROLING MILLS,

The appeals are allowed

Bench: N.KUMAR,H.S.KEMPANNA

disallowed because the whole transaction of sale of diamonds is treated as fictitious and manipulated transactions. However, he allowed set off the income declared under VDIS. This factual finding could have been considered by the Appellate Authority on the basis of the material, which was placed before him. Though strictly speaking, he is called the Appellate Authority, in tax jurisprudence

COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX vs. S.MADHAVA (HUF)

The appeals are allowed

Bench: N.KUMAR,H.S.KEMPANNA

disallowed because the whole transaction of sale of diamonds is treated as fictitious and manipulated transactions. However, he allowed set off the income declared under VDIS. This factual finding could have been considered by the Appellate Authority on the basis of the material, which was placed before him. Though strictly speaking, he is called the Appellate Authority, in tax jurisprudence

COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX vs. S.MADHAVA (HUF)

The appeals are allowed

Bench: N.KUMAR,H.S.KEMPANNA

disallowed because the whole transaction of sale of diamonds is treated as fictitious and manipulated transactions. However, he allowed set off the income declared under VDIS. This factual finding could have been considered by the Appellate Authority on the basis of the material, which was placed before him. Though strictly speaking, he is called the Appellate Authority, in tax jurisprudence

THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX vs. SHRI. HOSAGRAHAR

Appeal stands dismissed

Bench: SATISH CHANDRA SHARMA,SURAJ GOVINDARAJ

disallowance made under section 54F of the act even though the assessee has not fulfilled the conditions set out in the said section to avail benefit under the said provision as the assessee has invested in property outside India which cannot be said that assesse has satisfied the conditions set out in the said section?" I.T.A. NO.601

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

The appeals are dismissed

Bench: ARAVIND KUMAR,N.KUMAR

section 271. For starting the penalty proceedings under this clause, the condition precedent is that the Assessing Officer must be satisfied that a person has concealed particulars of his income or furnished inaccurate particulars of such income. 51 The ingredients which go to make up the conditions precedent to the infliction of penalty are: (i) the Assessing Officer

PR COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX vs. M/S ENNOBLE CONSTRUCTION

Bench: KRISHNA S.DIXIT,P.KRISHNA BHAT

disallowance; the fact that for the Assessment Year 2008 – 09 some addition was made under the said head, cannot be the sole basis for making such an addition for the subsequent Assessment Year, each assessment being an independent compact. He also pleaded about CBI raid & seizure of all documents, not even a piece of paper being in his custody

SYNDICATE BANK vs. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX

The appeal is allowed in

Bench: SATISH CHANDRA SHARMA,R. NATARAJ

251/- being 7.5% of the total income. The assessee was selected for scrutiny and the Assessing Officer passed an order of assessment dated 22.02.2013 and recomputed the total income of the appellant by restricting the deduction claimed under Section 36(1)(viia) of the Act to the provision made in the books of accounts and set off the loss brought

M/S SUBEX LIMITED vs. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF

Appeal is allowed

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

disallowance of deduction of Rs.9,53,10,234/- being the sale of hardware component from export turnover under Section 10A of the Act. This appeal has been admitted to consider the following question of law: " Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Honorable ITAT was right in law in excluding

THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX vs. M/S SHRIRAM CHITS

Appeal is allowed

Bench: ARAVIND KUMAR,JAYANT PATEL

disallowance of deduction of Rs.9,53,10,234/- being the sale of hardware component from export turnover under Section 10A of the Act. This appeal has been admitted to consider the following question of law: " Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Honorable ITAT was right in law in excluding

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 vs. M/S ATRIA WIND (KADAMBUR) PVT LTD

Bench: CHIEF JUSTICE,C M JOSHI

251/- made on account of capital gains. During the previous year relevant to AY 2017-18, a partnership firm namely M/s. Perpetual Investments, was converted into a private company [the assessee]. The said conversion entailed the transfer of the entire assets and liabilities from the partnership firm to the assessee company. Whereas the assessee claimed that the conversion

APPLE INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED vs. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF

Bench: P.S.DINESH KUMAR,T.G. SHIVASHANKARE GOWDA

SECTION 260-A OF THE INCOME TAX ACT, 1961 ARISING OUT OF ORDER DATED:03.08.2018 PASSED IN ITA NOS.422 AND 423/BANG/2018 (ANNEXURE-A), FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR:2013-2014 AND 2014-2015, PRAYING TO FORMULATE THE SUBSTANTIAL QUESTION OF LAW AS STATED THEREIN AND ETC. THESE ITAs, HAVING BEEN HEARD AND RESERVED FOR JUDGMENT ON 13.12.2022 COMING ON FOR PRONOUNCEMENT