COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-III vs. M/S MPHASIS SOFTWARE AND SERVICES

The appeals stand dismissed

Bench: ARAVIND KUMAR,VINEET SARAN

264 / 2014 Between 1 Commissioner of Income Tax III Central Revenue Buildings Queens Road, Bangalore 1 2 Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax Circle 12 (1), Bangalore Appellants (By Sri E I Sanmathi, Adv.) And M/s Mphasis Software & Service India Pvt Ltd Bangalore 560 093 Respondent (By Sri T Suryanarayana a/w Ms Tanmaye Rajkumar, Adv. For M/s King & Patridge, Adv.) Appeals

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 THE KARNATAKA STATE CO-OPERATIVE APEX BANK vs. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX

In the result, the appeal is disposed of

Bench: ALOK ARADHE,HEMANT CHANDANGOUDAR

264 of the Act. The Supreme Court in RAJESH JHAVERI supra has held that an intimation under Section 143(1) of the Act cannot be treated as an order of assessment. In the instant case, admittedly, no original assessment was made in case of the assessee. The assessee has made a claim in the return filed in response

THE COMMISSIONER OF vs. THE KARNATAKA STATE

Bench: ABHAY SHREENIWAS OKA (CJ),S.G.PANDIT

disallowing the depreciation which was claimed under section 32 of the Act was that once the capital expenditure is treated as application of income for charitable purposes, the assesses had virtually enjoyed a 100 per cent. write off of the cost of assets and, therefore, the grant of depreciation would amount to giving double benefit to the assessee. Though

COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX vs. M/S. NEW MANGALORE PORT

Bench: S.SUJATHA,N.K.PATIL

section 264 and it modified the previous order to that extent only and hence the original assessment order cannot be said to have last its identity? (ii) Whether Hon’ble Tribunal was right in law in quashing the order of the Commissioner of Income Tax u/s. 263 of the Act which is as per law as the provisions

THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX vs. M/S. SPECTRUM CONSULTANTS INDIA PVT. LTD.

The appeal is dismissed

Bench: N.KUMAR,RATHNAKALA

disallowed and amount of `22,91,791/- on the ground of delayed remittance. The assessee did not file any appeal. He filed an application under Section 264

SHRI B R RAMARAJU vs. THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX

Bench: The Hon’Ble Mr. Justice Ram Mohan Reddy Writ Petition No.6467 Of 2015 (T-It) Connected With Writ Petition Nos.6470 & 26074 Of 2015 (T-It) Writ Petition No.6469 Of 2015 (T-It)

disallowed, by order dated 30.11.2011, Annexure-A, of the Joint Commissioner of the Income Tax (OSD), Central Range, Bangalore, preferred a revision petition under Section 264

SMT. KAMALA RAJSHEKAR (DECD) vs. THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX

Bench: The Hon’Ble Mr. Justice Ram Mohan Reddy Writ Petition No.6467 Of 2015 (T-It) Connected With Writ Petition Nos.6470 & 26074 Of 2015 (T-It) Writ Petition No.6469 Of 2015 (T-It)

disallowed, by order dated 30.11.2011, Annexure-A, of the Joint Commissioner of the Income Tax (OSD), Central Range, Bangalore, preferred a revision petition under Section 264

M/S SPECTRUM CONSULTANTS INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED vs. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX

In the result this petition is allowed

Bench: The Hon’Ble Mr.Justice Ram Mohan Reddy

SECTION 264 FILED BEFORE THE RESPONDENT BY THE PETITIONER (ANNEX.D). THIS WRIT PETITION IS COMING ON FOR DICTATING ORDERS THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING: R W.P.No.8834/11 - 2 - O R D E R Briefly stated facts are, petitioner – an income tax assessee filed its return of income on 23/11/2006 for the assessment year 2006-07 (previous year ending

PR COMMISSIONER OF vs. SHUSHRUTHA EDUCATIONAL

Appeal is dismissed

Bench: S.SUJATHA,VINEET KOTHARI

disallowance made by the Assessing Officer and in allowing the amortization of expenses. Consequently, Ground No.B (1 to Date of Order 21-08-2018 I.T.A.No.862/2017 Pr.Commissioner of Income Tax (Exemptions) & Anr. Vs. Shushrutha Educational Trust 20/27 6) of the Revenue’s appeal for Assessment Year 2008-09 and Ground No.C for Assessment Year 2009-10 are dismissed

PR COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX vs. M/S MAHARANI LAKSHMI

Bench: S.SUJATHA,VINEET KOTHARI

disallowance of accumulation of income/set apart of income under section 11(1)(a) without considering the Board Circular No.12(PX-7) of 1968) dated 26.11.1968 wherein it is clearly explained that if a trust fails to comply with accumulation provisions under section 11(2) then the entire income accumulated would be liable to assessment under section

PR. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX vs. SRI SRI ADICHUNCHUNAGIRI SHIKSHANA TRUST

In the result, all the appeals are

Bench: JAYANT PATEL,B.SREENIVASE GOWDA

disallowance of depreciation, the assessee preferred appeals which were allowed in favour of the assessee. Revenue challenged the said orders of the CIT(Appeals) before the Tribunal unsuccessfully. The orders passed by the Tribunal are challenged in these appeals. 8. ITA No.431/2013, ITA Nos.56/2013 and 108/2014 are filed by the revenue challenging the orders passed by the Tribunal whereby

THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX vs. SRI ADICHUNCHUNGIRI

The appeals are dismissed

Bench: S.SUJATHA,N.K.PATIL

disallowance of depreciation, the assessee preferred appeals which were allowed in favour of the assessee. Revenue challenged the said orders of the CIT(Appeals) before the Tribunal unsuccessfully. The orders passed by the Tribunal are challenged in these appeals. 8. ITA No.431/2013, ITA Nos.56/2013 and 108/2014 are filed by the revenue challenging the orders passed by the Tribunal whereby

THE DIRECTOR OF INCOME TAX EXEMPTIONS vs. AL-AMEEN CHARITABLE FUND TRUST

The appeals are dismissed

Bench: S.SUJATHA,N.K.PATIL

disallowance of depreciation, the assessee preferred appeals which were allowed in favour of the assessee. Revenue challenged the said orders of the CIT(Appeals) before the Tribunal unsuccessfully. The orders passed by the Tribunal are challenged in these appeals. 8. ITA No.431/2013, ITA Nos.56/2013 and 108/2014 are filed by the revenue challenging the orders passed by the Tribunal whereby

THE DIRECTOR OF INCOME TAX vs. M/S GOKULA EDUCATION FOUNDATION (MEDICAL)

The appeals are dismissed

Bench: S.SUJATHA,N.K.PATIL

disallowance of depreciation, the assessee preferred appeals which were allowed in favour of the assessee. Revenue challenged the said orders of the CIT(Appeals) before the Tribunal unsuccessfully. The orders passed by the Tribunal are challenged in these appeals. 8. ITA No.431/2013, ITA Nos.56/2013 and 108/2014 are filed by the revenue challenging the orders passed by the Tribunal whereby

THE DIRECTOR OF INCOME TAX vs. INTERNATIONAL INSTITUTE OF INFORMATION TECHNOLOGY

The appeals are dismissed

Bench: S.SUJATHA,N.K.PATIL

disallowance of depreciation, the assessee preferred appeals which were allowed in favour of the assessee. Revenue challenged the said orders of the CIT(Appeals) before the Tribunal unsuccessfully. The orders passed by the Tribunal are challenged in these appeals. 8. ITA No.431/2013, ITA Nos.56/2013 and 108/2014 are filed by the revenue challenging the orders passed by the Tribunal whereby

COMMISSIONER OF INCOME vs. SRI ADICHUNCHANAGIRI

The appeals are dismissed

Bench: S.SUJATHA,N.K.PATIL

disallowance of depreciation, the assessee preferred appeals which were allowed in favour of the assessee. Revenue challenged the said orders of the CIT(Appeals) before the Tribunal unsuccessfully. The orders passed by the Tribunal are challenged in these appeals. 8. ITA No.431/2013, ITA Nos.56/2013 and 108/2014 are filed by the revenue challenging the orders passed by the Tribunal whereby

THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX vs. M/S KARNATAKA REDDY JANASANGHA

The appeals are dismissed

Bench: S.SUJATHA,N.K.PATIL

disallowance of depreciation, the assessee preferred appeals which were allowed in favour of the assessee. Revenue challenged the said orders of the CIT(Appeals) before the Tribunal unsuccessfully. The orders passed by the Tribunal are challenged in these appeals. 8. ITA No.431/2013, ITA Nos.56/2013 and 108/2014 are filed by the revenue challenging the orders passed by the Tribunal whereby