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

Bench: RAVI MALIMATH,N.KUMAR

2 to clause (vi) of sub- section (1) of section 9; By Finance Act, 2010, the said provision is substituted by the following: Substituted by the Finance Act, 2010, w.e.f. 01.04.2010. Prior to its substitution, proviso as substituted by the Finance Act, 2008, w.r.e.f. 01.04.2005, read as under: 12 “Provided that where in respect of any such

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

In the result, the appeals are partly allowed

Bench: B.MANOHAR,DILIP B.BHOSALE

disallowed the deduction to the extent of Rs.28,166/- only. The order of the Assessing Officer was confirmed by the Tribunal in appeal under Section 253 of the Act. However, having considered its order in respect of the assessee for the assessment year 1990-91 to 1997-98, the Tribunal allowed the deduction of Rs.28,166/-. 31. Learned counsel appearing

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. ALLIANCE INFRASTRUCTURE PROJECTS PVT LTD.,

In the result, appeal is dismissed

Bench: ALOK ARADHE,HEMANT CHANDANGOUDAR

section 14A read with Rule 8D(2)(ii) in its true sense and right spirit and the fact that when the interest expense incurred cannot be directly attributed to any particular income or receipts, provisions of Rule 8D (2) (ii) are automatically applicable ? b) Whether the Tribunal was correct in considering the Board's circular No.5/2014 dated 11.02.2014 which

TESCO HINDUSTAN WHOLESALING PVT. LTD.

In the result, appeal is dismissed

Bench: KRISHNA S DIXIT

section 14A read with Rule 8D(2)(ii) in its true sense and right spirit and the fact that when the interest expense incurred cannot be directly attributed to any particular income or receipts, provisions of Rule 8D (2) (ii) are automatically applicable ? b) Whether the Tribunal was correct in considering the Board's circular No.5/2014 dated 11.02.2014 which

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

2. Having regard to the rival contentions and the material on record, we find that the assessee has raised an additional ground of appeal particularly against the existence of conditions for issuance of warrant of search and the validity of the assumption of jurisdiction u/s 153A read with section 143(3) of the Act. In the remand report

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

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

In the result, order of the

Bench: ALOK ARADHE,HEMANT CHANDANGOUDAR

2. Facts leading to filing of this appeal briefly stated are that the assessee is an individual. The assessee was a shareholder in two companies viz., Pearl Insulation Pvt. Ltd. And M/s Pearl Metal Products Pvt. Ltd. The assessee had transferred the shares held by him in the aforesaid companies on 21.08.2008 resulting in Long Term Capital Gains. The assessee

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