THE PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER vs. M/S OBULAPURAM MINING

Bench: K.SOMASHEKAR,UMESH M ADIGA

253 ITR 0749 (Guj). 29.Learned counsel for the respondent/assessee relied upon Section 309(1) of the Companies Act, 1956, which reads as under “309. Remuneration of directors.-(1) The remuneration payable to the directors of a company, including any managing or whole- time director, shall be determined, in accordance with and subject to the provisions of section 198 and this

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

Bench: RAVI MALIMATH,N.KUMAR

disallowance of expenditure. The tax, if is deducted at any time during the financial year and paid before the date of filing of the return, the Legislature intended to allow deduction on such expenditure with an intention to permit additional time for most deductors upto September of the next financial year. 17.1: We draw further support from the fact that

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

Bench: S.SUJATHA,VINEET KOTHARI

253 of the Act. 21. Section 254 of the Act delineates the powers of the Tribunal. We are not presently deciding the taxability part of such buy-back of the shares by the Company because that would essentially depend upon the fresh inquiry or investigation upon remand by the learned Tribunal vide impugned Order dated Date of Judgment

COMMISSIONER OF INCOME vs. SRI SCORPIO ENGINEERING

Bench: B.V.NAGARATHNA,JAYANT PATEL

disallowance would be made if after deduction of tax during the previous 7 year, the same has been paid on or before the due date of filing of return of income as specified in sub-section (1) of Section 139. 1’his has been given retrospective effect from 1st April 2010. 16.5:Of course. the Legislature has given the effect

PRATHIBHA JEWELLERY HOUSE vs. THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS)

Bench: The Hon'Ble Dr.Justice Vineet Kothari

disallowance of the addition made by the AO and as confirmed by the CIT(A), are not adjudicated at this stage and the assessee shall be at liberty to agitate the same in case the CIT(A) decides the ground of jurisdiction against the assessee.” 3. Learned CIT(A) upon such remand, passed the impugned order on 11.2.2015 with

THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX vs. M/S. ALLIANCE INFRASTRUCTURE PROJECTS PVT LTD.,

In the result, appeal is dismissed

Bench: ALOK ARADHE,HEMANT CHANDANGOUDAR

1), BANGALORE. THIS I.T.A. COMING ON FOR HEARING, THIS DAY, ALOK ARADHE J., DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: JUDGMENT Mr.K.V.Aravind, learned counsel for the revenue. Mr.A. Shankar, learned senior counsel for the assessee. This appeal under Section 260A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as the Act for short) has been preferred by the revenue against the order dated

TESCO HINDUSTAN WHOLESALING PVT. LTD.

In the result, appeal is dismissed

Bench: KRISHNA S DIXIT

1), BANGALORE. THIS I.T.A. COMING ON FOR HEARING, THIS DAY, ALOK ARADHE J., DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: JUDGMENT Mr.K.V.Aravind, learned counsel for the revenue. Mr.A. Shankar, learned senior counsel for the assessee. This appeal under Section 260A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as the Act for short) has been preferred by the revenue against the order dated

MR.M.GEORGE JOSEPH vs. DY.COMMISSIONER OF INCOMET TAX OFFICER

In the result, order of the

Bench: ALOK ARADHE,HEMANT CHANDANGOUDAR

1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 12TH DAY OF JULY 2021 PRESENT THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE ALOK ARADHE AND THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE HEMANT CHANDANGOUDAR I.T.A. NO.238 OF 2015 BETWEEN: MR. M. GEORGE JOSEPH NO.534/30, 5TH CROSS MAHALAKSHMI LAYOUT BANGALORE-560086. ... APPELLANT (BY SRI. SHANKAR A. SR. COUNSEL FOR SRI. BHAIRAV KUTTAIAH

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

COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX vs. T AHOBALA RAO

The appeal is dismissed

Bench: B.MANOHAR,K.SREEDHAR RAO

disallowing the bad debts claimed and also disruption of the joint family and issued demand notice. Being aggrieved by the assessment order dated 30.06.2003, the assessee preferred an appeal before the CIT (Appeals)-4, Bangalore (hereinafter referred to as First Appellate Authority). The First Appellate Authority after considering the matter in detail confirmed the order passed by the Assessing Authority