PR COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-5 vs. M/S PAGE INDUSTRIES LTD

In the result, the appeal fails and is hereby dismissed

Bench: ALOK ARADHE,R. NATARAJ

disallowance of Rs.74,08,964/- under the provisions of Section 80JJAA of the Act were proposed. The 5 assessee thereupon filed objections before the Dispute Resolution Panel contesting all the additions. The Dispute Resolution Panel, however rejected the objections preferred by the assessee. The assessee thereupon filed an appeal before the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (hereinafter referred

M/S BEST TRADING & AGENCIES LTD vs. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX

In the result, the orders passed by the

Bench: ALOK ARADHE,H.T. NARENDRA PRASAD

256/- is not an allowable expenditure on the facts and circumstances of the case? 4. Facts leading to filing of these appeals briefly stated are that the assessee is a company and was utilized as a special purpose vehicle for restructuring of Kirloskar Electric Company Ltd. Under an arrangement, approved by this court, the surplus on non 6 manufacturing

M/S BEST TRADING & AGENCIES LTD vs. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX

In the result, the orders passed by the

Bench: ALOK ARADHE,H.T. NARENDRA PRASAD

256/- is not an allowable expenditure on the facts and circumstances of the case? 4. Facts leading to filing of these appeals briefly stated are that the assessee is a company and was utilized as a special purpose vehicle for restructuring of Kirloskar Electric Company Ltd. Under an arrangement, approved by this court, the surplus on non 6 manufacturing

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

Bench: S.SUJATHA,VINEET KOTHARI

SECTION 37 OF THE ACT. Page No 7 CIT Vs. Rajasthan State Government Sugar Mills Ltd 393 ITR 421 (Raj) 32-42 8 CIT Vs. G Balraj [2017] 390 ITR 50 (Kar) 43-47 10 CIT Vs. Chandulal Keshaval & Co., 38 ITR 601 (SC) 58-63 15 Sasoon J David

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

Bench: S.SUJATHA,VINEET KOTHARI

SECTION 37 OF THE ACT. Page No 7 CIT Vs. Rajasthan State Government Sugar Mills Ltd 393 ITR 421 (Raj) 32-42 8 CIT Vs. G Balraj [2017] 390 ITR 50 (Kar) 43-47 10 CIT Vs. Chandulal Keshaval & Co., 38 ITR 601 (SC) 58-63 15 Sasoon J David

M/S DYNASTY DEVELOPERS PVT.LTD., vs. THE ASST. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX

Appeals are allowed

Bench: B.VEERAPPA,N.KUMAR

Section 260A of the Income Tax Act, 1961, arising out of order dated 12.06.2009 passed in M.P. No.25/BNG/2009 (In I.T.A. No.1268/BNG/2007), for the Assessment Year 2004- 05, praying to : (i) formulate the substantial questions of law stated therein, (ii) Allow the appeal and set-aside the order passed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Bangalore Bench, Bangalore in M.P. No.25/BNG/2009

M/S. DYNASTY DEVELOPERS PVT LTD vs. THE ASST COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX

Appeals are allowed

Bench: B.VEERAPPA,N.KUMAR

Section 260A of the Income Tax Act, 1961, arising out of order dated 12.06.2009 passed in M.P. No.25/BNG/2009 (In I.T.A. No.1268/BNG/2007), for the Assessment Year 2004- 05, praying to : (i) formulate the substantial questions of law stated therein, (ii) Allow the appeal and set-aside the order passed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Bangalore Bench, Bangalore in M.P. No.25/BNG/2009