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

Bench: K.SOMASHEKAR,UMESH M ADIGA

b) of subsection 1 of Section 153A of the Act. 9. It is further contended that Tribunal erroneously set-aside the assessment order passed for the year assessment year 2011- 12 holding that there is no satisfaction recorded by the assessing officer of the searched person (153A) in the file of the said person ignoring the intention of legislature

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

Bench: K.SOMASHEKAR,UMESH M ADIGA

b) of subsection 1 of Section 153A of the Act. 7.It is further contended that Tribunal erroneously set-aside the assessment order passed for the year assessment year 2011- 12 holding that there is no satisfaction recorded by the assessing officer of the searched person (153A) in the file of the said person ignoring the intention of legislature and even

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

The appeals stand disposed of, accordingly

Bench: N.KUMAR,B.SREENIVASE GOWDA

42. Section 4 of the Act is the charging section. It provides, “Where any Central Act enacts that income-tax shall be charged for any assessment year at any rate or rates, income-tax at that rate or those rates shall be charged for that year in accordance with, and (subject to the provisions (including provisions for the levy

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

The appeals stand disposed of, accordingly

Bench: N.KUMAR,B.SREENIVASE GOWDA

42. Section 4 of the Act is the charging section. It provides, “Where any Central Act enacts that income-tax shall be charged for any assessment year at any rate or rates, income-tax at that rate or those rates shall be charged for that year in accordance with, and (subject to the provisions (including provisions for the levy

THE PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER vs. M/S OBULAPURAM MINING

Bench: K.SOMASHEKAR,UMESH M ADIGA

Disallowance of Expenses under Explanation to section 37(1) and in respect of third issue i.e., addition made on account of sale of Land, the ITAT set-aside the order of CIT (A) on that issue and restored the matter to A.O. for a fresh decision with the same directions as were given by the tribunal

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

B’ had not been claimed as deduction. 26. On going through the letter dated 30/9/2006, the Tribunal did not find any infirmity in the order of the Appellate Commissioner in granting relief to the assessee. We do not find any infirmity in the order of the Tribunal. Accordingly, substantial question of law No.3 is answered against the Revenue. 27. Fourth

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

B’ had not been claimed as deduction. 26. On going through the letter dated 30/9/2006, the Tribunal did not find any infirmity in the order of the Appellate Commissioner in granting relief to the assessee. We do not find any infirmity in the order of the Tribunal. Accordingly, substantial question of law No.3 is answered against the Revenue. 27. Fourth

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

B’ had not been claimed as deduction. 26. On going through the letter dated 30/9/2006, the Tribunal did not find any infirmity in the order of the Appellate Commissioner in granting relief to the assessee. We do not find any infirmity in the order of the Tribunal. Accordingly, substantial question of law No.3 is answered against the Revenue. 27. Fourth

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

The appeals are dismissed

Bench: SATISH CHANDRA SHARMA,SURAJ GOVINDARAJ

disallowed under Section 43- B which, as stated above, was inserted with effect from 1st April, 1984. It is also relevant to note that the first proviso which came into force with effect from 1st April, 1988 was not on the statute book when the assessments were made in the case of Allied Motors (P) Limited (supra). However, the Assessee

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

b) of sub- section (3) of Section 35. Thus, it would emerge from above analysis that neither the assessing officer nor the Board is competent to take any decision on any such controversy relating to report and approval granted by “Prescribed Authority” as it involves expert view or opinion. The controversy arising out of certificate issued by the prescribed authority

PR. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-5 vs. M/S. PUMA SPORTS INDIA P., LTD.,

The appeal stands dismissed

Bench: SATISH CHANDRA SHARMA,V SRISHANANDA

disallowance made under Section 40(a)(1) of the Act for the sum of 5 Rs.7,29,13,934/- by holding that the income of the non-residents by way of commission cannot be considered as accrued or arisen or deemed to accrue or arise in India as the services of such agents were rendered or utilized outside India

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

In the result, the appeals are partly allowed

Bench: B.MANOHAR,DILIP B.BHOSALE

b) Even if new Industrial Unit is not established, it has modernized the existing unit and if new plant 27 and machineries are erected whether the assessee is entitled to claim deduction under Section 80HH and 80 I, (c) If the assessee had purchased the machinery in the earlier assessment year and erected the same, whether the assessee can claim

THE PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER vs. M/S OBULAPURAM MINING

Bench: K.SOMASHEKAR,UMESH M ADIGA

42 Explanation.—The dismissal of a complaint, or the discharge of the accused, is not an acquittal for the purposes of this section” 38.Whereas, it is relevant to refer Article 20 of the Constitution of India, which reads as under: “20. Protection in respect of conviction for offences.— (1) No person shall be convicted of any offense except for violation

PR.COMMISSIONER OF INCOMETAX-2 vs. M/S.EYGBS (INDIA) PVT LTD

Bench: CHIEF JUSTICE,C M JOSHI

42,179 7. The AO had denied the exemption under Section 10AA on the TP pricing adjustment made pursuant to the APA. The AO reasoned that the assessee had declared the TP adjustments in anticipation of such TP adjustments by the TPA and to avoid the rigour of Section 92C(4) of the Act. The AO further observed that

M/S PADMINI PRODUCTS (P) LTD., vs. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX

In the result, the aforesaid

Bench: ALOK ARADHE,H.T. NARENDRA PRASAD

disallowed. 3. Being aggrieved, the assessee filed an appeal before the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) who by an order dated 20.02.2013 dismissed the appeal. The 7 assessee thereupon approached the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (hereinafter referred to as 'the Tribunal' for short) by filing an appeal. The Tribunal by an order dated 10.01.2013 inter alia held that transaction itself

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

b) or clause (c) of this sub- section shall be further increased by the amount which bears to ninety per cent of any sum referred to in clause (iiia) (not being profits on sale of a licence acquired from any other person), and clauses (iiib) and (iiic) of section 28, the same proportion as the export turnover bears

MANGALORE REFINERY AND PETROCHEMICALS LTD vs. PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX

In the result, I pass the following:-

Bench: The Hon'Ble Mr.Justice S.R.Krishna Kumar

b) Declare that the impugned certificate is in violation of the provisions of the VSV Act and contrary to the facts on record; c) Pass such other orders as the Hon’ble Court deems fit and proper in the interest of justice and equity; d) for costs of this Petition. “ 2. Both the petitions are by the same petitioner – assessee

MANGALORE REFINERY AND PETROCHEMICALS LTD vs. PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX

In the result, I pass the following:-

Bench: The Hon'Ble Mr.Justice S.R.Krishna Kumar

b) Declare that the impugned certificate is in violation of the provisions of the VSV Act and contrary to the facts on record; c) Pass such other orders as the Hon’ble Court deems fit and proper in the interest of justice and equity; d) for costs of this Petition. “ 2. Both the petitions are by the same petitioner – assessee