M/S NAM ESTATES PVT. LTD. vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER

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

Bench: ALOK ARADHE,H.T. NARENDRA PRASAD

disallowance under sub- 9 Section (3) of Section 40A shall be made no payment shall be deemed to be the profits and gains of business or profession under sub-Section (3A) of Section 40A where a payment or aggregate of payments made to a person in a day, otherwise than by an account payee cheque drawn on a bank

M/S.M K AGROTECH PRIVATE LTD vs. THE ADDL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX

The appeal is allowed

Bench: The Hon'Ble Mr. Justice Ravi Malimath

2) of the Income Tax Act, 1961, (for short, ‘the Act’) was issued. The Assessing Officer disallowed Rs.5,31,09,701/- on the ground that the assessee contravened the provisions of 3 Section 40A

THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX vs. M/S RAJMAHAL SILKS

The appeal is disposed of

Bench: ALOK ARADHE,H.T. NARENDRA PRASAD

disallowed under Section 40A(3) of the Act is liable to be allowed despite the assessee not satisfying Rule 6DD of the Income Tax Rules and consequently recorded a perverse finding? 2

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

The appeals stand disposed of, accordingly

Bench: N.KUMAR,B.SREENIVASE GOWDA

disallowed on the ground that the DTAA with USA and Canada shows that the claim is admissible only for the taxes paid under Income Tax Act in India and Federal tax in USA and Canada. In coming to the said conclusion the authorities have failed to notice Section 91 of the Act. Statutorily the assessee would be entitled to deduction

M/S WIPRO LIMITED vs. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX

The appeals stand disposed of, accordingly

Bench: N.KUMAR,B.SREENIVASE GOWDA

disallowed on the ground that the DTAA with USA and Canada shows that the claim is admissible only for the taxes paid under Income Tax Act in India and Federal tax in USA and Canada. In coming to the said conclusion the authorities have failed to notice Section 91 of the Act. Statutorily the assessee would be entitled to deduction

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

In the result, the appeals are partly allowed

Bench: B.MANOHAR,DILIP B.BHOSALE

2), the amount of any debt or part thereof, which is established to have become a bad debt in the previous year, which is written-off.” On the basis of the provision contained in Clause (vii) of sub-Section 1 of Section 36 as it stood in 1986-87, it appears that it was necessary for the assessee to establish

SMT SAIRA BANU vs. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX

Bench: ARAVIND KUMAR,VINEET SARAN

disallowance has to be made 4 under Section 40A(3) after upholding the genuineness of the payments on the facts and circumstances of the case?” 2

THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, vs. M/S CORPORATION BANK

In the result, the third substantial question of law is also answered

Bench: ALOK ARADHE,H.T. NARENDRA PRASAD

40a(ia) and disallowance under Section 36(1)(vii) of the Act. 3. The assessee thereupon filed an appeal before the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) who by an order dated 18.07.2013 partly allowed the appeal preferred by the assessee. The revenue thereupon filed an appeal before the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (hereinafter referred to as 'the tribunal' for short

THE PR. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIT (A) vs. M/S. MANIPAL HEALTH SYSTEMS PVT. LTD.,

In the result, this appeal is dismissed

Bench: P.S.DINESH KUMAR,T.G. SHIVASHANKARE GOWDA

disallowance made under Section 40A(2) of the Act by holding that the assessing authority has not doubted the payment

PR COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX- 4 vs. M/S JUPITER

Appeal is allowed in part accordingly

Bench: P.S.DINESH KUMAR,C.M. POONACHA

disallowance made by assessing authority under Section 40A(2) of the Act alternatively under Section 37 of the Act even

THE PR COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX vs. SHRI.M. ABDUL ZAHID

Bench: KRISHNA S.DIXIT,PRADEEP SINGH YERUR

2. Brief facts of the case: (a) The respondent is an assessee under the provisions of the Income Tax Act, 1961; it has been running the trade & business in the iron ore in the name & style of “SMSK Mineral Trading Company”, without obtaining necessary permits & licences as required under law; during Section 132 search of the business premises

THE PR COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX vs. SHRI.M ABDUL ZAHID

Bench: KRISHNA S.DIXIT,PRADEEP SINGH YERUR

2. Brief facts of the case: (a) The respondent is an assessee under the provisions of the Income Tax Act, 1961; it has been running the trade & business in the iron ore in the name & style of “SMSK Mineral Trading Company”, without obtaining necessary permits & licences as required under law; during Section 132 search of the business premises

THE PR COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, vs. M/S JAY MINERALS

Bench: KRISHNA S.DIXIT,PRADEEP SINGH YERUR

2. Brief facts of the case: (a) The respondent is an assessee under the provisions of the Income Tax Act, 1961; it has been running the trade & business in the iron ore in the name & style of “SMSK Mineral Trading Company”, without obtaining necessary permits & licences as required under law; during Section 132 search of the business premises

COMMISSIONER OF INCOME vs. SHRI G BALRAJ, PWD

In the result, question No

Bench: S.N.SATYANARAYANA,JAYANT PATEL

2. Since this matter was admitted, the other matters of the present group are admitted. At the time of admission, the questions are differently framed but considering the facts and circumstances of the case, it appears to us that the above referred question would remain as common in all the matters and additionally one more question can to be formulated

THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX vs. M/S MOOKAMBIKA DEVELOPERS

The appeals stand allowed to the extent as indicated above, and the matter is

Bench: VINEET SARAN,A.V.CHANDRASHEKARA

2. Challenging the order of the Appellate Commissioner confirming the validity of reopening for the assessment under Section 148 of the Act, the assessee preferred an appeal before the Tribunal. The Revenue also preferred a separate appeal against the order of the Appellate Commissioner contending that the disallowance made by the Appellate Commissioner under Section 40A

TEKTRONIX (INDIA) PRIVATE LIMITED

In the result, the appeal

Bench: SURAJ GOVINDARAJ

2) of the Act was issued to the assessee on 27.07.2010 inter alia made an addition of Rs.50,000/- towards development expenses, Rs.32,50,000/- towards unexplained investment and Rs.30,00,000/- was made in 5 excess of Rs.20,000/-. Accordingly, the assessment was completed. 4. The assessee thereupon filed an appeal before the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals

TIMES VPL LIMITED vs. THE COMMISSIONR OF INCOME TAX

In the result, the order passed by the

Bench: ALOK ARADHE,P.G.M.PATIL

2 of the Circular in which it has been clarified by the Central Board of Direct Taxes that the provision of Section 194C would not apply in the case of contract of sale and shall be applicable only in case of contract for work. It is therefore submitted that despite recording the finding in favour of the assessee that

PR COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX vs. M/S FORTUNA PROJECTS

Bench: P.S.DINESH KUMAR,C.M. POONACHA

2. Whether, the ITAT is justified in giving directions to the Assessing Officer to adopt the project completion method contrary to the return of income filed by the respondent adopting the project completion method? 3. Whether, on facts and circumstances of the case, the ITAT is justified in holding that the question of disallowance under Section 40A