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

The appeals stand disposed of, accordingly

Bench: N.KUMAR,B.SREENIVASE GOWDA

43,817/- u/s 143(1) read with Section 154. Notice u/s 142(1) was issued on 21.12.2001 with a questionnaire. Further notices u/s 142 (1) were issued on various dates beginning from 7.10.2003 to 8.3.2004. The assessee- company filed written replies along with enclosures from time to time. The return furnished on 30.10.2001 was processed

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

The appeals stand disposed of, accordingly

Bench: N.KUMAR,B.SREENIVASE GOWDA

43,817/- u/s 143(1) read with Section 154. Notice u/s 142(1) was issued on 21.12.2001 with a questionnaire. Further notices u/s 142 (1) were issued on various dates beginning from 7.10.2003 to 8.3.2004. The assessee- company filed written replies along with enclosures from time to time. The return furnished on 30.10.2001 was processed

THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX vs. M/S QUEST GLOBAL ENGINEERING SERVICES PVT. LTD.,

In the result, we don to find any

Bench: ALOK ARADHE,R. NATARAJ

disallowance under Section 14A of the Act, the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) upheld the order of the Assessing Officer. In the result, the appeal preferred by the assessee was partly allowed. The assessee as well as the revenue filed appeals before the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal against the order of Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals). The Tribunal

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

THE PR COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX vs. M/S MPHASIS LTD

The appeal is dismissed accordingly

Bench: SATISH CHANDRA SHARMA,V SRISHANANDA

section 43(5) of the Act.” 8. This Court has admitted the appeal on the following substantial questions of law : “1. Whether the Tribunal on the facts and circumstances of the case, the Tribunal is right in law in setting aside the disallowance

SMT. PUNEETHA @ PUNEETHA B. A. vs. SRI. D. RAVI

The appeal is dismissed accordingly

Bench: R DEVDAS

section 43(5) of the Act.” 8. This Court has admitted the appeal on the following substantial questions of law : “1. Whether the Tribunal on the facts and circumstances of the case, the Tribunal is right in law in setting aside the disallowance

M/S T T K PRESTIGE LTD vs. THE UNION OF INDIA REPTD BY ITS FINANCE SECRETARY

Bench: The Hon’Ble Mr.Justice P.B. Bajanthri W.P. No.26037/2005 C/W W.P.No.4464/2007 & W.P.No.27087/2005(It)

43 relates to taxes wherein fringe benefits has been included. Therefore, total income is required to be taken under Section 4 which is the charging section. 8. Learned counsel for the respondent vehemently contended that where a validity of an Act is under challenge, scope of interference by the Court is limited to the extent of, “Whether legislative competency

COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, vs. SHREE RENUKA SUGARS LTD.,

The Appeals are allowed

Bench: K.BHAKTHAVATSALA,B.SREENIVASE GOWDA

disallowing the claim for depreciation to the extent of subsidy received towards co-generation plant. The assessee challenged the order of the Assessing Officer at Annexure-B in each case before the C I T (Appeals) in ITA No.309 and 376/BGM/08-09. The CIT, placing reliance on the earlier order passed by the ITAT, by order dated 31.8.2009 (vide Annexure

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

5) to Section 32(1) of the Act, which was actually existing in the earlier concern viz., the partnership firm. Therefore, the original assets, which were added in the company at the time of succession cannot be considered for the purposes of depreciation. Accordingly, the claim for depreciation on intangible assets was disallowed. 3. Being aggrieved, the assessee filed

THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX vs. M/S AMCO POWER SYSTEMS LTD.,

Bench: B.MANOHAR,VINEET SARAN

5. Similarly, for the earlier four assessment years 1999-2000, 2000-01, 2001-02 and 2002-03, the case of the assessee was reopened under Section 147/148 of the Act and the benefit granted in such years under Section 35AB of the Act was disallowed. However, because of limitation, the assessment for the assessment year 1998-99, in which also

THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX vs. M/S AMCO POWER SYSTEMS LTD

Bench: B.MANOHAR,VINEET SARAN

5. Similarly, for the earlier four assessment years 1999-2000, 2000-01, 2001-02 and 2002-03, the case of the assessee was reopened under Section 147/148 of the Act and the benefit granted in such years under Section 35AB of the Act was disallowed. However, because of limitation, the assessment for the assessment year 1998-99, in which also

THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX vs. M/S AMCO POWER SYSTEMS LTD.,

Bench: B.MANOHAR,VINEET SARAN

5. Similarly, for the earlier four assessment years 1999-2000, 2000-01, 2001-02 and 2002-03, the case of the assessee was reopened under Section 147/148 of the Act and the benefit granted in such years under Section 35AB of the Act was disallowed. However, because of limitation, the assessment for the assessment year 1998-99, in which also

THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX vs. M/S AMCO POWER SYSTEMS LTD.,

Bench: B.MANOHAR,VINEET SARAN

5. Similarly, for the earlier four assessment years 1999-2000, 2000-01, 2001-02 and 2002-03, the case of the assessee was reopened under Section 147/148 of the Act and the benefit granted in such years under Section 35AB of the Act was disallowed. However, because of limitation, the assessment for the assessment year 1998-99, in which also

HINDUSTAN AERONAUTICS LIMITED vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER

In the result, the order of the

Bench: ALOK ARADHE,H.T. NARENDRA PRASAD

5. The assessee thereupon filed an appeal before Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) who by an order dated 24.12.2012 upheld the order of assessment. The assessee thereupon approached the Tribunal by filing an appeal. The tribunal by an order 7 dated 22.04.2016 though upheld the order of Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) in respect of finding that expenses of Rs.570

THE PR COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX vs. M/S HINDUSTAN AERONAUTICS LTD

In the result, the order of the

Bench: ALOK ARADHE,H.T. NARENDRA PRASAD

5. The assessee thereupon filed an appeal before Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) who by an order dated 24.12.2012 upheld the order of assessment. The assessee thereupon approached the Tribunal by filing an appeal. The tribunal by an order 7 dated 22.04.2016 though upheld the order of Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) in respect of finding that expenses of Rs.570

THE PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER vs. M/S OBULAPURAM MINING

Bench: K.SOMASHEKAR,UMESH M ADIGA

43,47,335/- Disallowance of expenses claimed under section 37(1) towards illegal mining. 387,76,69,992/- 4. Aggrieved by the above additions, the assessee preferred an appeal before the Tribunal against the additions made hereinabove, which came to be allowed. 5

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

Bench: CHIEF JUSTICE,C M JOSHI

disallowance of 10% of dividend income under Section 14A of the Act. 5. The Assessee is engaged in the business of providing back office support and data processing services to its customers. The Assessee had filed its return of income [ROI] for the AY 2015-16 and AY 2016-17 on 30.11.2015 and 14.10.2016 respectively. The Assessee had declared

KARNATAKA STATE BEVERAGES CORPORTION LIMITED vs. THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX

Bench: The Hon’Ble Mr. Justice Anand Byrareddy Writ Petition No.12872 Of 2013 (T-It) Connected With Writ Petition No.14687 Of 2014 (T-It), Writ Petition No.15910 Of 2015 (T-It) & Writ Petition No.17514 Of 2015 (T-It) In W.P.No.12872 Of 2013 Between: Karnataka State Beverages Corporation Limited, Represented By It’S Executive Director (Finance), Sri. Shrikant B Vanahalli, Aged About 57 Years, No.78, Seethalakshmi Towers, Mission Road, Bangalore 560 027. …Petitioner

5 need bear no, quid pro quo to the services rendered to the licencees. The word 'fee' is not used in the Act or the Rules in the technical sense of the expression. By 'licence fee' or 'fixed fee' is meant the price or consideration which the Government charges to the licensees for parting with its privileges and granting them