M/S WIPRO LIMITED vs. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX

The appeals stand disposed of, accordingly

Bench: N.KUMAR,B.SREENIVASE GOWDA

26. The answer to the question depends on the interpretation to be placed on Section 90 which is found in Chapter IX which deals with Double Taxation Relief. 27. Section 90 deals with agreement with foreign countries or specified territories. The present Section came into force from 01.04.2004. Earlier to that period, Section 90 read as under: - 40 - “90. Agreement

PR. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX vs. M/S AMALGAMATED BEAN COFFEE TRADING CO LTD

In the result, the orders dated 21

Bench: ALOK ARADHE,ASHOK S.KINAGI

1)(iii) of the Act with effect from 01.04.2016 the proviso can be attracted to the case of expansion of business which is not applicable to the facts of the case as the case of the assessee pertains to Assessment Year 2010-11. 14. For the subsequent Assessment Years i.e., 2011-12, 2012-13 and 2013-14, the Commissioner

COFFEEDAY GLOBAL LTD. vs. ADDITIONAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX

In the result, the orders dated 21

Bench: ALOK ARADHE,ASHOK S.KINAGI

1)(iii) of the Act with effect from 01.04.2016 the proviso can be attracted to the case of expansion of business which is not applicable to the facts of the case as the case of the assessee pertains to Assessment Year 2010-11. 14. For the subsequent Assessment Years i.e., 2011-12, 2012-13 and 2013-14, the Commissioner

COFFEEDAY GLOBAL LTD. vs. ADDITIONAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX

In the result, the orders dated 21

Bench: ALOK ARADHE,ASHOK S.KINAGI

1)(iii) of the Act with effect from 01.04.2016 the proviso can be attracted to the case of expansion of business which is not applicable to the facts of the case as the case of the assessee pertains to Assessment Year 2010-11. 14. For the subsequent Assessment Years i.e., 2011-12, 2012-13 and 2013-14, the Commissioner

THE PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER vs. M/S OBULAPURAM MINING

Bench: K.SOMASHEKAR,UMESH M ADIGA

Disallowance of Expenses under Explanation to section 37(1) and in respect of third issue i.e., addition made on account of sale of Land, the ITAT set-aside the order of CIT (A) on that issue and restored the matter to A.O. for a fresh decision with the same directions as were given by the tribunal

PR. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX vs. SMT. G. LAKSHMI ARUNA

Bench: K.SOMASHEKAR,UMESH M ADIGA

26,04,186 Add: Interest u/s234A – 1,30,68,753 235B – 1,59,97,806 2,90,66,559 13 Total Tax 10,16,70,745 Less: 140A paid 2,00,00,000 Net Amount Payable 8,16,70,745 13. It is further contended by the standing counsel for the appellant, that against the order passed by the Deputy

PR. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX vs. SHRI. GALI JANARDHANA REDDY

Bench: K.SOMASHEKAR,UMESH M ADIGA

disallowed(Rs) (I) (II) (III) 2009-10 28,76,23,325 9,95,82,217 2010-11 2,29,05,056 1,46,91,363 15. Of these the assessing officer found that to the extent given in column (III) above, the appellant was unable to substantiate the said expenses claimed before the assessing officer. 16.In respect of assessment

M/S TEJAS NETWORKS LIMITED vs. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX

In the result, I proceed to pass the following:

Bench: The Hon’Ble Mr.Justice Aravind Kumar

disallow the claim made by an assessee under Section 35(2AB) which does not include any expenditure incurred in the acquisition of rights, in, or arising out of scientific research would be within the domain of the jurisdictional assessing Officer. In other words, the issue of jurisdiction of assessing officer to examine such claim, is an issue which requires

THE PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER vs. M/S OBULAPURAM MINING

Bench: K.SOMASHEKAR,UMESH M ADIGA

26 of the General Clauses Act, 1897 (10 of 1897) or of section 188 of this Code. 42 Explanation.—The dismissal of a complaint, or the discharge of the accused, is not an acquittal for the purposes of this section” 38.Whereas, it is relevant to refer Article 20 of the Constitution of India, which reads as under: “20. Protection

THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX vs. M/S. IBC KNOWLEDGE PARK PVT. LTD.,

In the result, the appeals filed by the Revenue

Bench: B.V.NAGARATHNA,JAYANT PATEL

III. The LESSEE shall pay an amount of Rs.52,44,962/= to the LESSORS, towards one month’s rent in advance and to be adjusted against rent for Tower A on commencement of the lease and after complete adjustment of the said amount, the LESSEE shall pay further amounts towards rent as provided herein. If, however, the lease is terminated

THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX vs. M/S. IBC KNOWLEDGE PARK PVT. LTD.,

In the result, the appeals filed by the Revenue

Bench: B.V.NAGARATHNA,JAYANT PATEL

III. The LESSEE shall pay an amount of Rs.52,44,962/= to the LESSORS, towards one month’s rent in advance and to be adjusted against rent for Tower A on commencement of the lease and after complete adjustment of the said amount, the LESSEE shall pay further amounts towards rent as provided herein. If, however, the lease is terminated

THE COMMISIONER OF INCOME-TAX vs. M/S IBC KNOWLEDGE PARK PVT LTD

In the result, the appeals filed by the Revenue

Bench: B.V.NAGARATHNA,JAYANT PATEL

III. The LESSEE shall pay an amount of Rs.52,44,962/= to the LESSORS, towards one month’s rent in advance and to be adjusted against rent for Tower A on commencement of the lease and after complete adjustment of the said amount, the LESSEE shall pay further amounts towards rent as provided herein. If, however, the lease is terminated

M/S PADMINI PRODUCTS (P) LTD., vs. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX

In the result, the aforesaid

Bench: ALOK ARADHE,H.T. NARENDRA PRASAD

iii) Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Honourable ITAT was right in law in upholding the action of the Learned Respondent in invoking 5th proviso to Section 32(1) of the IT Act in the assessment years subsequent to the assessment year in which the succession took place? (iv) Whether on the facts

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 as withdrawn by the assessee. 9. It would be, however, necessary to see what did the assessee in the letter dated 8th March, 2002, addressed to the AO, had stated. By this letter, at the outset, the assessee withdrew their claim of 100% depreciation and requested not to levy penalty in view of 10 the peculiar facts

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

In the result, the findings

Bench: ALOK ARADHE,R. NATARAJ

iii) Whether the Tribunal was justified in law in holding that the notice issued under section 148 of the Act, was based on the sufficient and relevant reasons and further the assumption of jurisdiction by the Assessing Officer was in accordance with law on the facts and circumstances of the case? (iv) Whether the Tribunal was justified

THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX vs. TEXAS INSTRUMENTS INDIA PVT LTD

The appeals are dismissed

Bench: SATISH CHANDRA SHARMA,SURAJ GOVINDARAJ

1. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal is right in law in setting aside the disallowance of Rs.7,57,22,069 made under section 80JJAA of the Act by holding that the employees in software industry are covered by definition of ‘Workman’ in Explanation (iii) to section 80JJAA of the Act read with

PR.COMMISSIONER OF INCOMETAX-2 vs. M/S.EYGBS (INDIA) PVT LTD

Bench: CHIEF JUSTICE,C M JOSHI

iii) "Whether on facts and circumstances of the case, the Tribunal's order can be said as perverse in nature not apricating that the assessee hd not complied with conditions set out in Section 10AA to get the deduction under said section and further this amount being alleged as deemed income for the purposes of being part of business

RNS INFRASTRUCTURE LIMITED vs. INCOME TAX SETTLEMENT COMMISSIONER

In the result, writ petitions are allowed

Bench: The Hon’Ble Mr. Justice L. Narayana Swamy Writ Petition Nos.46275-46289 Of 2016 (T-It)

disallow the entire cash withdrawals in their assessments. If the entire cash withdrawal is used for sundry payment, the projects, which are all labour intensive, could not have been completed. The allegations of the Department referred to in paragraph 15.2 at page 62 of the order dated 27th May 2016 are proved to be imaginary and without basis. The Department