THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX GULBARGA vs. M/S MANJUNATHA COTTON AND GINNING FACTORY

The appeals are dismissed

Bench: ARAVIND KUMAR,N.KUMAR

disallowed in computing the total income of such person as a result thereof shall, for the purposes of clause (c) of this sub-section be deemed to represent the income in respect of which particulars have been concealed. 24. Section 274 deals with procedure to be followed before imposing penalty under Chapter XXI. It reads as under:- “274. Procedure

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 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

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 export on account of sale to another STP unit, the Tribunal, relying upon the decision of Tata Elxsi Ltd. (supra), held in favour of the assessee. Aggrieved by the order of the Tribunal, the revenue has I.T.A.Nos.44-45/2016

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

The appeal is dismissed accordingly

Bench: SATISH CHANDRA SHARMA,V SRISHANANDA

2. CIT vs. MPHASIS LTD., reported in (2016) 74 taxmann.com 274 (KARNATAKA), 8 3. CIT vs. MPHASIS LTD., reported in (2020) 113 taxmann.com 74 (SC), 4. CIT vs. BSES YAMUNA POWERS LTD., reported in (2013) 40 taxmann.com 108 (Delhi), 5. CIT vs. D.CHETAN & CO. reported in (2016) 75 taxmann.com 300 (Bombay) and 6. CIT vs. WOODWARD GOVERNOR INDIA

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

The appeal is dismissed accordingly

Bench: R DEVDAS

2. CIT vs. MPHASIS LTD., reported in (2016) 74 taxmann.com 274 (KARNATAKA), 8 3. CIT vs. MPHASIS LTD., reported in (2020) 113 taxmann.com 74 (SC), 4. CIT vs. BSES YAMUNA POWERS LTD., reported in (2013) 40 taxmann.com 108 (Delhi), 5. CIT vs. D.CHETAN & CO. reported in (2016) 75 taxmann.com 300 (Bombay) and 6. CIT vs. WOODWARD GOVERNOR INDIA

COMMISSIONER OF INCOME vs. SHRI MUNINAGA REDDY

Bench: ARAVIND KUMAR,JAYANT PATEL

2. We have heard Mr. P. Dinesha, learned counsel appearing for the appellant – assessee as well as Mr.K.V.Aravind, learned counsel appearing for the respondent – revenue for final disposal of the appeal. Hence, appeal is admitted and finally heard. 4 3. The only aspect to be considered in the present appeal is the order for imposition of penalty under Section

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

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

2 to Section 9(1)(vi) of the Act and no TDS 16 was deducted on the payment, therefore, disallowance under Section 40(a)(ia) of the Act has rightly been made. It is also pointed out that Section 40 of the Act begins with a non obstante clause and has an overriding effect on Section 30 to Section

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

The appeal stands dismissed

Bench: JYOTI MULIMANI,S.SUJATHA

2. The respondent-assessee had filed return of income declaring nil income for the Assessment Year 2010-11. The case was selected for scrutiny and Assessing Authority concluded the assessment as against nil income declared after giving credit for set- off of loss carried forward. The Assessing authority during the assessment proceedings has noticed that the assessee claimed depreciation

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

Bench: ALOK ARADHE,H.T. NARENDRA PRASAD

2. The facts giving rise to filing of this appeal briefly stated are that the assessee is engaged in the business of processing research. The assessee filed the return of income for the Assessment Year 2006-07. The Assessment Officer completed the assessment by making various disallowances under Sections 10A and 10AA of the Act by assessing additional 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

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

Bench: S.SUJATHA,RAVI V HOSMANI

2. Is not the finding of the Tribunal that the Appellant could not establish the commercial expediency in incurring expatriate costs perverse?” - 3 - 3. The assessee is a foreign company incorporated under the laws of Delaware and has its principal office in Sunnyvale, California, USA. The assessee has set up a branch office in India for providing marketing support services

SRI B GAJENDRA KUMAR vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER

Appeals are dismissed

Bench: N.KUMAR,RATHNAKALA

2), 142 (1) of the Act, for the assessment year 2006 – 07 was also issued. The assessee filed revised returns of income, declaring the income which had escaped assessment. Assessee though suffered loss in the business, according to him, in order to buy peace in the department and to avoid protracted litigation, offered notional income. Subsequently, a scrutiny assessment

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

2,60,960.70 square feet, whereas, the project was approved for 1,53,066 square feet and therefore, the built up area was not in accordance with the approved plan and therefore, the project put up by the assessee was not approved by the local authority and provisions of Section 80IB(10) of the Act are not applicable and therefore

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 claim of deduction under Section

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

2. We have heard Mr. P. Dinesha, learned counsel appearing for the appellant – assessee as well as Mr.K.V.Aravind, learned counsel appearing for the 3 respondent – revenue for final disposal of the appeal. Hence, appeal is admitted and finally heard. 3. The only aspect to be considered in the present appeal is the order for imposition of penalty under Section