M/S T T K PRESTIGE LTD vs. THE UNION OF INDIA REPTD BY ITS FINANCE SECRETARY

Bench: The Hon’Ble Mr.Justice P.B. Bajanthri W.P. No.26037/2005 C/W W.P.No.4464/2007 & W.P.No.27087/2005(It)

disallowed under section 37 of the Act is outside the purview of fringe benefit tax as explained by CBDT Circular dated 29/8/2005 in response to Question No.35. Hence the contention of the assessee that levy of fringe benefit tax is double taxation is incorrect. 6. It is submitted that the petitioner has contended that the benefits/expenses can be taxed

PR COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX vs. M/S ENNOBLE CONSTRUCTION

Bench: KRISHNA S.DIXIT,P.KRISHNA BHAT

Section 260A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter ‘1961 Act’) had framed the following question, as the substantial question of law: “Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal is justified in law in setting aside the disallowance of Rs.5,89,49,503/- claimed as Transport Creditors by following decisions in cases

COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-III vs. M./S WIPRO LIMITED

The appeal is disposed of

Bench: ALOK ARADHE,H.T. NARENDRA PRASAD

disallowance in respect of reimbursement of medical expenses granted by the assessee to its employees by ignoring the fact that the same is excluded as per proviso to viii of Section 17(2) of the Act read with Rule 3. It is also submitted that as per Clause 6 expenses relating to medical treatment incurred by the employer

THE PR. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (4) vs. M/S CHAMUNDI WINERY AND DISTILLERY

Bench: S.SUJATHA,VINEET KOTHARI

disallowance which was allowed by CIT(A). 03. Aggrieved by the CIT (A)’s decision, Revenue had moved in appeal before this Tribunal and this Tribunal in ITA.1260/Bang/2012, dt.05.04.2013, for A.Y.2009-10 had held as under: (para 5.3.3. & para 5.4 of ITAT order already quoted above as an extract in the Order of the CIT (Appeals) hence not quoted again) Date

PR. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX vs. M/S CHAMUNDI WINERY AND DISTILLERY

Bench: S.SUJATHA,VINEET KOTHARI

disallowance which was allowed by CIT(A). 03. Aggrieved by the CIT (A)’s decision, Revenue had moved in appeal before this Tribunal and this Tribunal in ITA.1260/Bang/2012, dt.05.04.2013, for A.Y.2009-10 had held as under: (para 5.3.3. & para 5.4 of ITAT order already quoted above as an extract in the Order of the CIT (Appeals) hence not quoted again) Date