SMT SAIRA BANU vs. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX

Bench: ARAVIND KUMAR,VINEET SARAN

B’ MAIN LIC QUARTERS JEEVANBHIMANAGAR BANGALORE-560 075. …APPELLANT (BY SRI A.SHANKAR AND SRI M.LAVA, ADVs.,) AND THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE-7(1) KENDRIYA SADAN KORAMANGALA BANGALORE-560 034. ...RESPONDENT (BY SRI K.V.ARAVIND, ADV.,) THIS ITA IS FILED UNDER SEC.260-A OF INCOME TAX ACT 1961, ARISING OUT OF ORDER DATED: 27.02.2009 PASSED IN ITA NO.957/BNG/2008

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

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

Bench: KRISHNA S.DIXIT,PRADEEP SINGH YERUR

b) The Assessing Officer having completed the assessment u/s 143(3) r/w Section 153A disallowed purchases/expenditures in terms of Section 37(1); 7 despite notice the assessee failed to explain as to why certain purchases should not be treated as having been made in violation of the provisions of Section 40A

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

Bench: KRISHNA S.DIXIT,PRADEEP SINGH YERUR

b) The Assessing Officer having completed the assessment u/s 143(3) r/w Section 153A disallowed purchases/expenditures in terms of Section 37(1); 7 despite notice the assessee failed to explain as to why certain purchases should not be treated as having been made in violation of the provisions of Section 40A

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

Bench: KRISHNA S.DIXIT,PRADEEP SINGH YERUR

b) The Assessing Officer having completed the assessment u/s 143(3) r/w Section 153A disallowed purchases/expenditures in terms of Section 37(1); 7 despite notice the assessee failed to explain as to why certain purchases should not be treated as having been made in violation of the provisions of Section 40A

THE PR COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX vs. ADC INDIA COMMUNICATIONS LTD

The appeal is disposed of with liberty as prayed for by the learned

Bench: S.G.PANDIT,C.M. POONACHA

B NO.8512 PEENYA INDUSTRIAL AREA BENGALURU-560058 PAN-AAACK6553H …RESPONDENT (BY SRI. NIKHILESH RAO M.,ADVOCATE) THIS ITA / INCOME TAX APPEAL IS FILED UNDER SEC.260-A OF INCOME TAX ACT 1961, PRAYING TO FORMULATE THE SUBSTANTIAL QUESTIONS OF LAW STATED THEREIN, ALLOW THE APPEAL AND SET ASIDE THE ORDERS PASSED Digitally signed by BHARATHI S Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA

COMMISSIONER OF INCOME vs. SHRI G BALRAJ, PWD

In the result, question No

Bench: S.N.SATYANARAYANA,JAYANT PATEL

7. The other grievance of the revenue is that the CIT(A) has granted relief to the assesse on the ground that when the assessee has not claimed the payment as expenditure, the provisions of section 40a(ia) could not be applied and the Assessing Officer could not have made the disallowance of the same. In support of his contention

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

Appeal is allowed in part accordingly

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

B" Bench, Bangalore, has been admitted to consider the following questions of law: "1. Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal is right in setting aside the disallowance of short term loss of Rs. 11,27,2000/- claimed by assessee in Profit and Loss Account by holding that the shares have acquired by assessee

M/S TOYOTA KIRLOSKAR MOTOR P LTD vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER

In the result, the appeal is allowed

Bench: ALOK ARADHE,M.G.S. KAMAL

disallowances made under Section 40a(i) and (ia) of the Act. The assessee thereupon furnished the information vide communication dated 12.08.2013. 4. The Assessing Officer initiated the proceeding under Section 201 and 201(1A) of the Act and treated the assessee as assessee in default in respect of the 6 amount made in provision, which was reversed / un- utilized

THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, vs. M/S BAHUBALI NEMINATH MUTTIN,

The appeals are dismissed

Bench: ANAND BYRAREDDY,RAGHVENDRA S.CHAUHAN

Disallowance under Section 40A (3) of the I.T. Act being undisclosed income Rs.24,216/- (v) Gross profit on suppressed sales being undisclosed income at Rs.19,45,509/- (vi) Addition on account of cessation of liability under Section 41 (1) of the I.T. Act at Rs.2,37,818/-. 3. The assessee had filed an appeal before the Commissioner of Income

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

The appeals stand disposed of, accordingly

Bench: N.KUMAR,B.SREENIVASE GOWDA

7. Assessee preferred an appeal before the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) [CIT(A)] which was disposed-off by the CIT(A) vide order dated 20.03.2006. Aggrieved by the said order, both the assessee and the Department preferred separate appeals before the ITAT. The ITAT, vide common order dated 30.05.2008 disposed of the appeals. Assessment Year

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

The appeals stand disposed of, accordingly

Bench: N.KUMAR,B.SREENIVASE GOWDA

7. Assessee preferred an appeal before the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) [CIT(A)] which was disposed-off by the CIT(A) vide order dated 20.03.2006. Aggrieved by the said order, both the assessee and the Department preferred separate appeals before the ITAT. The ITAT, vide common order dated 30.05.2008 disposed of the appeals. Assessment Year

COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX vs. M/S SWADESHI INTERNATIONALS

The appeal is disposed off

Bench: The Hon'Ble Mr. Justice Ravi Malimath

40A(2)(b) of the Income Tax Act? 4. Learned counsel for the appellant contends that yet another question of law arises for consideration, which reads as follows: Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was right in allowing foreign travel expenses when the assessee has not established that such expenditure was incurred exclusively