COMMISSIONER OF INCOME vs. SHRI MUNINAGA REDDY

Bench: ARAVIND KUMAR,JAYANT PATEL

disallowed in computing the assessee’s total income is deemed to represent the concealed income. It is for the assessee to furnish material to establish that the assessee has not concealed income or has not furnished inaccurate particulars of income. In the absence of any such evidence, the presumption of concealment of income or furnishing of inaccurate particulars of income

M/S WIPRO LIMITED vs. THE ADDITIONAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX,

In the result, the appeal is disposed of in terms of

Bench: ALOK ARADHE,H.T. NARENDRA PRASAD

disallowed under Section 14A of the Act and was upheld by the Dispute Resolution Panel and the tribunal rightly reduced it to 2.5%. It is also pointed out that the assessee itself has worked out the same at 2%. It is also urged that losses of non STP units, profits of taxable Units cannot be set off against profits

PR COMMISSIONER OF vs. M/S WIPRO LIMITED

In the result, the appeal is disposed of in terms

Bench: ALOK ARADHE,H.T. NARENDRA PRASAD

disallowance under Section 40(a)(ia) of the Act is to ensure prevention of revenue leakage on foreign payments as recovery of tax from non resident payees was difficult. With regard to the claim of set off of STP unit losses of the assessee, it is 17 submitted that in view of decision of the Supreme Court in ‘COMMISSIONER

THE PR.COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX vs. M/S.RYATARA SAHAKARI SAKKARE KARKHANE NIYAMITHA

The appeal stands dismissed

Bench: JYOTI MULIMANI,S.SUJATHA

disallowed a sum of Rs.30,86,504/- and Rs.4,86,946/- being payment made to harvesters/transporters and vehicle hire charges and legal fees. The said order having reached finality, the Assessing Authority initiated penalty proceedings in respect of aforesaid two claims and passed an order under Section 271(1)(c) of the Act levying penalty of Rs.2

THE PR.COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX vs. M/S. INFOSYS BPO LTD

Bench: ALOK ARADHE,H.T. NARENDRA PRASAD

disallowed a sum of Rs.14,62,586/- under Section 14A of the Act. Being aggrieved, the assessee filed an appeal before the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), who by order dated 28.03.2014 partly allowed the appeal preferred by the assessee. Thereafter, the revenue as well as the assessee filed appeals before the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (hereinafter referred

M/S AMD FAR EAST LTD., vs. THE JOINT DIRECTOR OF INCOME-TAX

Bench: S.SUJATHA,RAVI V HOSMANI

274/- but paid Minimum Alternate Tax [MAT] under Section 115JB. The assessee’s case was referred to Transfer Pricing Officer [TPO] for determining arm’s length price under Section 92CA of the Act. On receipt of the order passed under Section 92CA Act, the respondent passed the draft assessment order under Section 143[3] read with Section 144C

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

disallowed as it was not meant for management of construction, but on other expenses, such as advertisement, sales promotion etc. Therefore, the income had to be assessed under the head income from other sources. The Tribunal held that the income had to be assessed as business income and the assessee could not have received a sum of Rs.78.25 lakh without

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

disallowed as it was not meant for management of construction, but on other expenses, such as advertisement, sales promotion etc. Therefore, the income had to be assessed under the head income from other sources. The Tribunal held that the income had to be assessed as business income and the assessee could not have received a sum of Rs.78.25 lakh without

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

disallowed as it was not meant for management of construction, but on other expenses, such as advertisement, sales promotion etc. Therefore, the income had to be assessed under the head income from other sources. The Tribunal held that the income had to be assessed as business income and the assessee could not have received a sum of Rs.78.25 lakh without

M/S BANGALORE ELECTRICITY SUPPLY COMPANY LTD vs. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX

In the result, the order passed by the tribunal

Bench: ALOK ARADHE,R. NATARAJ

disallowed the deduction claimed under Section 80IA(4)(iv)(c) of the Act and held that computation as per normal provisions of the Act is adopted as tax liability. 3. The assessee thereupon filed an appeal before the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), who by an order dated 10.02.2009 dismissed the appeal preferred by the assessee. The assessee thereupon approached

SRI B GAJENDRA KUMAR vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER

Appeals are dismissed

Bench: N.KUMAR,RATHNAKALA

274 r/w. Section 271 (1)(c) of the Act were issued to the assessee to show cause as to why penalty under Section 271 (1)(c) should not be initiated for the addition on account of disallowance

THE PR COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX vs. M/S MPHASIS LTD

The appeal is dismissed accordingly

Bench: SATISH CHANDRA SHARMA,V SRISHANANDA

disallowance of foreign exchange loss on forward contracts of Rs.26,31,35,000/- by following the decision of Bombay High Court in the case of CIT vs. D.Chethan and Co., in ITA No.278 of 2014 dated 01.10.2016, by allowing the foreign exchange loss as business loss even when the assessee camouflaged the forward contract loss i.e., marked to market loss

SMT. PUNEETHA @ PUNEETHA B. A. vs. SRI. D. RAVI

The appeal is dismissed accordingly

Bench: R DEVDAS

disallowance of foreign exchange loss on forward contracts of Rs.26,31,35,000/- by following the decision of Bombay High Court in the case of CIT vs. D.Chethan and Co., in ITA No.278 of 2014 dated 01.10.2016, by allowing the foreign exchange loss as business loss even when the assessee camouflaged the forward contract loss i.e., marked to market loss

PR. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX vs. M/S SASKEN

Appeals are dismissed at the stage of admission

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

274 (SC) held in favour of the assessee. Insofar as disallowance of deduction under Section 10A in respect of deemed

SHRI. MUNINAGA REDDY vs. THE ASST. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME -TAX CIRCLE 6 (1)

Appeals are allowed to the aforesaid extent

Bench: ARAVIND KUMAR,JAYANT PATEL

disallowed in computing the assessee’s total income is deemed to represent the concealed income. It is for the assessee to furnish material to establish that the assessee has not concealed income or has not furnished inaccurate particulars of income. In the absence of any such evidence, the presumption of concealment of income or furnishing of inaccurate particulars of income

SAINT GOBAIN CRYSTALS & DETECTORS (I) LIMITED vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX

In the result, the order of the tribunal insofar as

Bench: ALOK ARADHE,H.T. NARENDRA PRASAD

274/- after claiming deduction of Rs.1,44,11,1999/- for Unit No.1 and Rs.3,29,87,814/- for Unit No.2 under Section 10B of the Act. The return of income was taken up for scrutiny assessment under Section 143(3) of the Act. The Assessing Officer by an order dated 15.12.2011 disallowed

THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME - TAX vs. M/S. MAHAVEER MARVEL

In the result, the appeal fails and the same is

Bench: ALOK ARADHE,H.T. NARENDRA PRASAD

disallowed and the profits earned from the project in question i.e., Rs.3,05,61,970/- were treated as income and subjected to levy of tax and interest. 3. Being aggrieved, the assessee filed an appeal before the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals). The Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) by an order 5 dated 10.11.2011 inter alia held that after