SHRI. SHANKARLAL GILADA vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER,

Bench: G.NARENDAR,M.NAGAPRASANNA

1] . Therefore, to that extent, depending upon the facts of each case, the expenditure incurred in acquiring those shares will have to be apportioned. 49. We note from the facts in State Bank of Patiala case [CIT v. State Bank of Patiala, (2017) 391 ITR 218 (P&H)] that the AO, while passing the assessment order, had already restricted

THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX vs. M/S. CHAITANYA PROPERTIES PVT LTD

Bench: S.SUJATHA,VINEET KOTHARI

D G M E N T Mr. K.V.Aravind , Adv. for Appellants - Revenue Mr. A.Shankar and Mr. M.Lava , Advs. for Respondent - Assessee 1. The Revenue has filed these appeals under Section 260-A of the Income Tax Act, 1961, purportedly raising a substantial question of law arising from the order of the learned Income Tax Appellate Tribunal vide Annexure-C dated

M/S SUBEX LIMITED vs. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF

Appeal is allowed

Bench: P.S.DINESH KUMAR,M G UMA

1 'Act' for short 2 Assessment Year I.T.A No.42/2017 3 The AO3 passed his order on August 31, 2009 under Section 143(3) of the Act. Assessee challenged the same before CIT(A)4 and the appeal was allowed in part vide order dated October 20, 2010. Assessee challenged CIT(A)'s order before ITAT5. By order dated November

THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX vs. M/S SHRIRAM CHITS

Appeal is allowed

Bench: ARAVIND KUMAR,JAYANT PATEL

1 'Act' for short 2 Assessment Year I.T.A No.42/2017 3 The AO3 passed his order on August 31, 2009 under Section 143(3) of the Act. Assessee challenged the same before CIT(A)4 and the appeal was allowed in part vide order dated October 20, 2010. Assessee challenged CIT(A)'s order before ITAT5. By order dated November