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

The appeals stand disposed of, accordingly

Bench: N.KUMAR,B.SREENIVASE GOWDA

5) of the Act defines the mandatory requirements and the time limit for rectification and the assessee has not filed any revised return for claim of tax credit with reference to income computed under Section 10A. - 28 - 17. Thereafter, the Assessing Authority proceeded to decide the claim on merits also. Insofar as assessment year 2001-02 is concerned

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

The appeals stand disposed of, accordingly

Bench: N.KUMAR,B.SREENIVASE GOWDA

5) of the Act defines the mandatory requirements and the time limit for rectification and the assessee has not filed any revised return for claim of tax credit with reference to income computed under Section 10A. - 28 - 17. Thereafter, the Assessing Authority proceeded to decide the claim on merits also. Insofar as assessment year 2001-02 is concerned

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

Appeal is dismissed

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

Section 40A(2) of the Income Tax, Act 19614 for the service charges paid to its holding company, M/s. MEMGIIPL5. On appeal, the CIT(A)6 partly allowed assessee's appeal and confirmed the disallowance. On further appeal, the ITAT has 2Assessment Year 3Assessing Officer 4‘the Act’ for short 5

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

The appeal is disposed of

Bench: ALOK ARADHE,H.T. NARENDRA PRASAD

disallowing the business expenditure under Section 37(1) of the Act and passed an order under Section 153A read with Section 143(3) of the Act on 31.12.2007. 3. The assessee filed an appeal before the 5 Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals). The Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) by an order dated 30.03.2010 held that transportation expenses to the extent

SMT SAIRA BANU vs. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX

Bench: ARAVIND KUMAR,VINEET SARAN

5 purpose and as such Section 40A(3) of the Act was attracted as the payments in cash were of over `20,000/- and as such disallowed

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

In the result, the appeals are partly allowed

Bench: B.MANOHAR,DILIP B.BHOSALE

40A(9) of the Act? 7 5. In ITA 133/07, the following two substantial questions of law arise for our consideration: A-9. Whether the Tribunal was correct in holding that the stock transfers made to the new industrial undertaking at Amalnar for manufacture of fatty acid and glycerin plant should be taken at market price

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

M/S. KESARVAL BEVERAGES LTD vs. THE DEPUTY COMMISSISONER OF

The appeal is dismissed

Bench: N.KUMAR,RATHNAKALA

disallowance of the claim. It was held that the expenses incurred is nothing but an business expenditure, on the basis of the material available on - 4 - record. However, the matter was remanded to the Tribunal to consider as to whether such expenditure incurred was reasonable or unreasonable in terms of Section of 40A(2) of the Act. 3. With regard

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

Bench: KRISHNA S.DIXIT,PRADEEP SINGH YERUR

40A(3); therefore, the Assessing Officer disallowed 100% of the purchases made from unregistered dealers. (c) The assessee took the matter in appeal, being aggrieved by the Assessment Orders; the Principal Commissioner of Income Tax favoured the appeals on the premise that in determining the profits of business, the expenses incurred have to be set off against the receipts from

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

Bench: KRISHNA S.DIXIT,PRADEEP SINGH YERUR

40A(3); therefore, the Assessing Officer disallowed 100% of the purchases made from unregistered dealers. (c) The assessee took the matter in appeal, being aggrieved by the Assessment Orders; the Principal Commissioner of Income Tax favoured the appeals on the premise that in determining the profits of business, the expenses incurred have to be set off against the receipts from

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

Bench: KRISHNA S.DIXIT,PRADEEP SINGH YERUR

40A(3); therefore, the Assessing Officer disallowed 100% of the purchases made from unregistered dealers. (c) The assessee took the matter in appeal, being aggrieved by the Assessment Orders; the Principal Commissioner of Income Tax favoured the appeals on the premise that in determining the profits of business, the expenses incurred have to be set off against the receipts from

COMMISSIONER OF INCOME vs. SHRI G BALRAJ, PWD

In the result, question No

Bench: S.N.SATYANARAYANA,JAYANT PATEL

40a(ia). Sec.40(ia) provide as under: Notwithstanding anything to the contrary in sections 30 to 38, the following amounts shall not be deducted in computing the income chargeable under the head “profits & gains of business or profession”. (a) ……………………….. 18 (ia) any interest commission or brokerage, rent, royalty, fees for professional services or fees for technical services payable

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

Appeal is allowed in part accordingly

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

40A(2) of the Act alternatively under Section 37 of the Act even when the assessee has not furnished a single evidence to prove that exact services which would be provided by the sister concerns i.e., Hindusthan Infrastructure Project and Engineering Limited, Vectra Stock and Securities Private Limited?" 2. Shri. E.I. Sanmathi, learned Standing Counsel for the Revenue prays

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

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

disallowance under Section 40A(3) and 40(a)(ia) of the Income - Tax does not arise as there was no claim for deduction of expenses? 2. Heard Sri E.I. Sanmathi, learned Advocate for the Revenue. 3. Despite service, there is no representation on behalf of the Assessee. Hence, on the last date of hearing, we had requested Sri A.Shankar, learned

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

disallow the deferred compensation claimed by appellant as the claim does not fall within the parameters of sec.36(1)(iv) & (v) r.w.s. 40A(9)? (iv) Whether the tribunal was right in excluding the computer software sales made to STP/SEZ units in India from "export turnover" for the purpose of computing deduction under Section 10A/10AA of the Act? (v) Whether

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

40A(2) only “legitimate needs of the business” is allowable as expenditure and, as such, the assessing authority rightly disallowed it? 2. Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal is right in law in holding that the assessee has rightly transferred the hospital as a going concern and took 1 Income Tax Appellate Tribunal

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

40A(3) of the Act was wrong and the disallowance to the extent of Rs.53,00,000/- as made by the Assessing Officer ought to have been maintained. By the impugned order dated 27.3.2014, the 4 Tribunal held that the reopening of the assessment was bad in law as, according to the Tribunal, unless the Assessing Officer has made

TIMES VPL LIMITED vs. THE COMMISSIONR OF INCOME TAX

In the result, the order passed by the

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

5. The assessee filed reply on 21.01.2018 in which inter alia, it was stated that the tax was not deductable on the said payment and the proceeding be dropped. On being satisfied the Assessing Officer did not pass any rectification order. Thereafter, a notice dated 11.10.2011 was issued by the Commissioner of Income Tax, Hubballi under Section