PROLIFIC HR CONSULTANTS (INDIA) LTD vs. ADDITIONAL DIRECTOR OF INCOME TAX (CPC)

The appeal is allowed-in-part

Bench: S.G.PANDIT,K. V. ARAVIND

disallowance of the Employees’ Contribution towards Provident Fund under Section 36(1)(va) of the Act. 5. Sri. Vikram Huilgol

THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX vs. M/S. STATE BANK OF MYSORE

In the result, the order passed by the tribunal

Bench: ALOK ARADHE,H.T. NARENDRA PRASAD

1)(viia) of the Act is allowed as a deduction and recorded a perverse finding? (ii) Whether the Appellate Authorities were correct in holding that the employees contribution deducted by the assessee has been credited under the respective statue before filing return of income and hence allowable deduction without taking into consideration, the provisions of Section 2(24)(x) read

M/S KHODAY INDIA LTD vs. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX

In the result, the orders passed by the Assessing

Bench: ALOK ARADHE,HEMANT CHANDANGOUDAR

Section 36(1)(va) of the Act and upheld the addition with regard to disallowance under Section 14A of the Act read

THE PR. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX vs. LATE KARI THIMMEGOWDA RAJASHEKHARA

Bench: P.S.DINESH KUMAR,UMESH M ADIGA

disallowance made under section 36(1)(va) by holding that the disallowance on ground of delay in remittance of employees

M/S COURSE5 INTELLIGENCE PVT. LTD., vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER

Appeals stand disposed of, as indicated above

Bench: S.SUJATHA,RAVI V HOSMANI

disallowance on account of non deduction of tax under 5 Section 195 in violation of a specific provisions of the Act and should not be eligible for incentive under Section 10A? 3. Whether the Tribunal was justified on the facts and circumstances of the case the Tribunal is right in law in directing the assessing authority to exclude the leased

THE PR COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIT(A) vs. M/S BIESSE MANUFACTURING COMPANY PVT LTD

Bench: S.SUJATHA,VINEET KOTHARI

disallowance made by assessing authority under section 2(24)(x) read with section 36(1)(va) for the Act on account

THE COMMISSIONER vs. M/S KHODAY INDIA PVT LTD

Bench: S.SUJATHA,VINEET SARAN

disallowance made on account of payment of employees contribution to ESI and PF made by the assessee company beyond the due date? 3 iii. Whether the Tribunal was correct in giving relief to the assessee without appreciating that the amounts are income in the hands of the assessee in terms of Section 2(24)(x) read with Section 36(1

THE PR. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIT (A) vs. M/S AMBUTHIRTHA POWER P LTD.,

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

Bench: ALOK ARADHE,HEMANT CHANDANGOUDAR

section 2(24)(x) r/w/s 36(1) (va) of the Act disallowed Rs.5,04,40,313/- by following the decision

THE PR. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIT(A) vs. M/S AMBUTHIRTHA POWER P.LTD

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

Bench: ALOK ARADHE,HEMANT CHANDANGOUDAR

section 2(24)(x) r/w/s 36(1) (va) of the Act disallowed Rs.5,04,40,313/- by following the decision

COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX - III vs. M/S MYSORE MINERALS LTD

Bench: JAYANT PATEL,N.K.SUDHINDRARAO

disallowed payments in respect of the employee’s contribution of Rs.13,49,849/- and Rs.14,543/- under the provisions of Section 36(1)(va

THE PR. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX vs. M/S. ADECCO INDIA PVT. LTD.,

In the result, appeal filed by the revenue fails and

Bench: ALOK ARADHE,HEMANT CHANDANGOUDAR

Section 2(24)(x) r/w/s 36(1) (va) of the Act disallowed Rs.50,04,40,313/- by following the decision

M/S MAHENDRA APPLIANCES vs. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA

Bench: K.GOVINDARAJULU,D.V.SHYLENDRA KUMAR

1 2 200 e Ni g the t IX Ii lie a Ic fo 200 3 2. The assessee was filing monthly returns as per the provisions of section 35111 of the Act and the Rules and had all been accepted as such. 3. It appears there was a search of the premises and the examination of the accounts books

THE COMMR OF INCOME TAX vs. M/S WIPRO LTD

Bench: RAVI MALIMATH,N.KUMAR

disallowed on the ground that it was only a provision to be treated as a contingent liability. The assessee had claimed a sum of Rs.2,36,04,819 as deduction of excise duty under Section 43B of the Act. It was also rejected on the ground that the working made by the assessee Is not correct. When the assessing officer