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

THE PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER vs. M/S OBULAPURAM MINING

Bench: K.SOMASHEKAR,UMESH M ADIGA

c) As per the Act the CBDT can issue instructions under section 119 of the Act. Subsection (1) of Section 119 of the Act provides that the Board may, from time to time, issue such orders, instructions and directions to other income tax authorities as it may deem fit for the proper administration of this Act, and such authorities

PR. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX vs. SMT. G. LAKSHMI ARUNA

Bench: K.SOMASHEKAR,UMESH M ADIGA

Disallowed (Rs.) (I) (II) (III) 2009-10 28,76,23,325 9,95,82,217 2010-11 2,29,05,056 1,46,91,363 Of these, the Assessing Officer found that to the extent given in column 3 above, the appellant was unable to substantiate the said expense claimed before the Assessing Officer. 16. In respect of assessment

PR. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX vs. SHRI. GALI JANARDHANA REDDY

Bench: K.SOMASHEKAR,UMESH M ADIGA

disallowed(Rs) (I) (II) (III) 2009-10 28,76,23,325 9,95,82,217 2010-11 2,29,05,056 1,46,91,363 15. Of these the assessing officer found that to the extent given in column (III) above, the appellant was unable to substantiate the said expenses claimed before the assessing officer. 16.In respect of assessment

THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX vs. TEXAS INSTRUMENTS INDIA PVT LTD

The appeals are dismissed

Bench: SATISH CHANDRA SHARMA,SURAJ GOVINDARAJ

41,570/- which was processed on 8.06.2011, determining the total income of the same amount. Returns were taken up for scrutiny after issuance of statutory notice under Section 143(2) on 14.09.2009. I.T.A. NO.141 OF 2020 c/w I.T.A. NO.151 OF 2020 4 2. The Assessee had claimed deduction of Rs.7,57,22,069/- under Section 80JJ(AA) of Income

THE PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER vs. M/S OBULAPURAM MINING

Bench: K.SOMASHEKAR,UMESH M ADIGA

c) that the assessee must have paid interest on the said amount and claimed it as a deduction. It is to be noted that in Madhav Prasad's case (supra), reference was made to a decision of the Bombay High Court in CIT vs. Bombay Samachar Ltd. (1969) 74 ITR 723 (Bam): TC 15R.843. Learned counsel for the Revenue submitted

COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-III vs. M/S SYNDICATE BANK

The appeals are disposed of

Bench: ALOK ARADHE,RAVI V HOSMANI

disallowing an amount of Rs.192,53,21,426/- on reversal of interest pertaining to earlier years as deduction out of current years income and added back to interest on zero coupon bonds to the tune of RS.1,03,53,095/- along with other additions/disallowance in computation of regular income/book profit. It was held that as per section 36(1)(viia

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

In the result, I proceed to pass the following:

Bench: The Hon’Ble Mr.Justice Aravind Kumar

41 and in this section, unless the context otherwise requires— (1) "actual cost" means xxx section 47. (2) "paid" means actually xxx profession. (3) "plant" includes xxx fittings. (4)[(i) "scientific research" means any activities for the extension of knowledge in the fields of natural or applied science including agriculture, animal husbandry or fisheries;] (ii) references to expenditure incurred

THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX vs. M/S. IBC KNOWLEDGE PARK PVT. LTD.,

In the result, the appeals filed by the Revenue

Bench: B.V.NAGARATHNA,JAYANT PATEL

c) Whether the Tribunal was justified in rejecting the contention of the appellant that proceedings under Section 153C ought to be initiated only for assessment years in respect of which the documents were found during the search? d) Whether the Tribunal was correct in upholding the validity of the order under Section 153C of the Act for the assessment year

THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX vs. M/S. IBC KNOWLEDGE PARK PVT. LTD.,

In the result, the appeals filed by the Revenue

Bench: B.V.NAGARATHNA,JAYANT PATEL

c) Whether the Tribunal was justified in rejecting the contention of the appellant that proceedings under Section 153C ought to be initiated only for assessment years in respect of which the documents were found during the search? d) Whether the Tribunal was correct in upholding the validity of the order under Section 153C of the Act for the assessment year

THE COMMISIONER OF INCOME-TAX vs. M/S IBC KNOWLEDGE PARK PVT LTD

In the result, the appeals filed by the Revenue

Bench: B.V.NAGARATHNA,JAYANT PATEL

c) Whether the Tribunal was justified in rejecting the contention of the appellant that proceedings under Section 153C ought to be initiated only for assessment years in respect of which the documents were found during the search? d) Whether the Tribunal was correct in upholding the validity of the order under Section 153C of the Act for the assessment year

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

In the result, the appeals are partly allowed

Bench: B.MANOHAR,DILIP B.BHOSALE

c) If the assessee had purchased the machinery in the earlier assessment year and erected the same, whether the assessee can claim benefit of 80HH in the next assessment year and whether such machineries can be considered as new machineries. 17. By reading of para 5 of the order it is clear that the Tribunal has not given details about

M/S J K INDUSTRIES LTD vs. THE JOINT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX

In the result, all questions are answered against the

Bench: D.V.SHYLENDRA KUMAR,B.SREENIVASE GOWDA

disallowed as notional and not real, for the purpose of computation under Section 80HHC of the Act, the tribunal not having taken a contrary view, it is to be deemed as rejected. 17. Be that as it may, what we find is that in respect of the first item of incentive viz., premium sale exim scrips amount as claimed

M/S NANDI STEELS LIMITED vs. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX

In the result, the findings

Bench: ALOK ARADHE,R. NATARAJ

disallowed the claim of set off of brought forward loss. It is also pointed out that proviso to Section 72(i) was omitted by Finance act, 1999 with effect from 01.04.2000 and for the impugned assessment year 2003-04, the assessee was not required to carry on the business for the purpose of set off of brought forward business loss

M/S MYSORE POLYMERS & RUBBER PRODUCTS LTD vs. THE COMMISSIONER OF COMMERCIAL TAXES

In the result, writ appeal No

Bench: D.V.SHYLENDRA KUMAR,B.S.INDRAKALA

41 over from the scheme of single point levy under the assessee’s dealers who are accustomed to single point levy under the Karnataka Sales Tax Act to the scheme of levy on every sale transaction but only in respect of value added tax etc. 53. While that may be introductory to the introduction of the Karnataka Value Added

M/S. KARNATAKA INSTRADE CORPORATION LIMITED vs. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX

The appeal is allowed in part

Bench: B.MANOHAR,VINEET SARAN

c)Legal and Professional fees Rs. 37,99,032 (d)Repairs and maintenance Rs. 25,389 (e)Royalty Rs. 71,71,643 Further, no claim has been made towards the rates and taxes to the Department of Mines and Geology for the assessment year 2002-03. The alternative claim with regard to capitalization of expenditure was also rejected

M/S FIDELITY BUSINESS SERVICES INDIA PVT LTD vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX

Bench: S.SUJATHA,VINEET KOTHARI

disallowed the loss on sale of investments holding that the transaction was a colourable device to reduce the taxable income but, the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) allowed the Assessee’s claim and on the appeal filed by the Revenue, the Tribunal restored the issue of quantification of such loss to the Assessing Officer for fresh adjudication, it was held

PR COMMISSIONER OF vs. M/S GMR HYDERABAD

Appeals stand disposed of accordingly

Bench: S.SUJATHA,RAVI V HOSMANI

C’ Bench, Bengaluru, (‘Tribunal’ for short) as shown in the cause title. 3. The appeals were admitted to consider the following substantial question of law: In ITA Nos.322/2018 to 324/2018: “Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was justified in law in quashing the assessment order passed under Section 143(3) r/w Section 153A