THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX vs. M/S DAVANGERE DISTRICT CENTRAL CO-OPERATIVE BANK

In the result, we do not find any merit in this appeal, the same fails

Bench: SATISH CHANDRA SHARMA,V SRISHANANDA

disallowed Rs.17,38,222 under section 40(a)(ia) by considering the available materials on record as well as provisions of the Act"?" 4. The learned counsel appearing for the appellants- revenue has fairly submitted before this court that so far as substantial question Nos.3 & 4 are concerned, he is not pressing for the same. 5. Learned counsel

MANIPAL HEALTH SYSTEMS

In the result, we do not find any merit in this appeal, the same fails

Bench: ARAVIND KUMAR

disallowed Rs.17,38,222 under section 40(a)(ia) by considering the available materials on record as well as provisions of the Act"?" 4. The learned counsel appearing for the appellants- revenue has fairly submitted before this court that so far as substantial question Nos.3 & 4 are concerned, he is not pressing for the same. 5. Learned counsel

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

In the result, the findings

Bench: ALOK ARADHE,R. NATARAJ

270/-. 3. The reasons recorded on 27.05.2005 for reopening the assessment were supplied to the assessee 5 on 26.07.2006. The reason for reopening the assessment was that the assessee had set off the carried forward business loss of earlier years to the extent of Rs.39,99,652/- against the income declared under the head 'income from capital gains' arising

THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX vs. ING VYSYA BANK LTD

In the result, this appeal is allowed in part,

Bench: B.MANOHAR,D.V.SHYLENDRA KUMAR

disallowance is not only fully justified but also a finding of fact we had referred to on principle of law and also the investment does not part- take the character of stock-in-trade. Even in trading and business practices long lasting investment if at all is in the nature of capital asset and not a stock-in-trade

M/S BRIGADE PLAZA UNIT OWNERS ASSOCIATION vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER

The appeal stands dismissed

Bench: SATISH CHANDRA SHARMA,V SRISHANANDA

disallowance claimed by the assessee to the tune of Rs.22,14,270/- under exempt income 4 category and assessed tax under Sections

M/S KARNATAKA STATE CO-OPERATIVE APEX BANK LTD vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX

In the result, the impugned order dated

Bench: ALOK ARADHE,ASHOK S.KINAGI

270/- on 31.03.2010. The return was processed under Section 143(1) of the Act and was selected for scrutiny. The Assessing Officer by an order dated 31.12.2011 under Section 143(3) of the Act made several additions amounting to Rs.16,12,53,463/- and assessed income was determined 4 at Rs.49,74,45,733/-. The additions included

SRI. ARUN KUMAR M B vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER

The appeal is disposed of

Bench: P.S.DINESH KUMAR,T.G. SHIVASHANKARE GOWDA

disallowed `16,75,654/- for the Assessment Year 2011-12 and `18,07,270/- for the Assessment Year 2012-13 . 5. Smt. Jinita Chatterjee, submitted that the CIT (Appeals) erred in holding that Section

M/S BIG BAGS INTERNATIONAL (P) LTD vs. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX

In the result, the order of the tribunal to the

Bench: ALOK ARADHE,H.T. NARENDRA PRASAD

270/-. The said return was 6 selected for scrutiny and after the return was processed under Section 143(1) of the Act and the assessment was completed under Section 143(3) of the Act by order dated 22.03.2013 and the Assessing Officer assessed the income of the assessee at Rs.13,22,67,166/-. The Assessing Officer made two additions while

THE PR. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX vs. M/S. DAVANGERE DISTRICT CENTRAL CO-OP BANK LTD.,

In the result, we do not find any merit in this appeal,

Bench: SATISH CHANDRA SHARMA,V SRISHANANDA

disallowances were mainly in respect of Provisions for NPA's, RO & SAO's cost, accrued interest on NPA's, addition on account of Bank Reconciliation Provisions. Assessee preferred an appeal before the CIT(A). The CIT(A) partly allowed the appeal. As such Revenue and Assessee both preferred the appeal before the Tribunal. The Tribunal has partly allowed both

THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX vs. M/S BOSCH LTD

The appeal is dismissed

Bench: B M SHYAM PRASAD,T.M.NADAF

section 115WB of the Act. 3. The undisputed fact is that the respondent, in the relevant assessment year 2008-09, has incurred expenditure towards reimbursement of medical expenses incurred by its employees /their family members in unapproved hospitals. The Tribunal, in allowing the respondent’s appeal, has relied upon its orders in No.1407/B/2010 in another appeal in the assessee

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

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

THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX vs. SRI M KRISHNA ALVA

Bench: N.KUMAR,RATHNAKALA

Section 260-A of I.T. Act 1961, arising out of Order dated 18-01-2007 passed in ITA No. 129/BANG/2005, for the Assessment Year 1998-99, praying that this Hon'ble Court may be pleased to: i. formulate the substantial questions of law stated therein, - - 2 ii. allow the appeal and set aside the order passed by the ITAT, Bangalore

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

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

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 Of these, the Assessing Officer found that to the extent given in column 3 above, the appellant was unable to substantiate the said expense claimed before the Assessing Officer. 16. In respect of assessment

THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, vs. M/S WIPRO GE MEDICAL SYSTEMS LTD

Appeals stand disposed of accordingly

Bench: JAYANT PATEL,B.SREENIVASE GOWDA

disallowed the claim of the assessee is on account that the provision is contingent liability, cannot be allowed, expenditure can be allowed only on payment basis. The ITAT having considered the adequate material placed before it, thought it fit not to remit the matter to the Assessing Officer. It is also noticed that the method of accounting followed

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

Appeals stand disposed of accordingly

Bench: JAYANT PATEL,B.SREENIVASE GOWDA

disallowed the claim of the assessee is on account that the provision is contingent liability, cannot be allowed, expenditure can be allowed only on payment basis. The ITAT having considered the adequate material placed before it, thought it fit not to remit the matter to the Assessing Officer. It is also noticed that the method of accounting followed

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

Appeal is partly allowed

Bench: S.SUJATHA,N.K.PATIL

disallowed the claim of the assessee is on account that the provision is contingent liability, cannot be allowed, expenditure can be allowed only on payment basis. The ITAT having considered the adequate material placed before it, thought it fit not to remit the matter to the Assessing Officer. It is also noticed that the method of accounting followed