THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX vs. M/S BHARAT FRITZ WERNER LTD

In the result, appeal is disposed of

Bench: ALOK ARADHE,R. NATARAJ

disallowance of expenditure claimed under Section 43B of the Act. The assessee thereupon filed an appeal before the Commissioner of Income

THE PR. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX vs. LATE KARI THIMMEGOWDA RAJASHEKHARA

Bench: P.S.DINESH KUMAR,UMESH M ADIGA

Section 43B of the Act and CBDT Circular which clarifies that the disallowance in question is not covered in Section

THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX vs. M/S. SPECTRUM CONSULTANTS INDIA PVT. LTD.

The appeal is dismissed

Bench: N.KUMAR,RATHNAKALA

disallowed and amount of `22,91,791/- on the ground of delayed remittance. The assessee did not file any appeal. He filed an application under Section 264 of the Act before the Commissioner, pleading that such remittances were allowable more so because all such remittances had been made prior to last date fixed for filing its return under Section

M/S COURSE5 INTELLIGENCE PVT. LTD., vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER

Appeals stand disposed of, as indicated above

Bench: S.SUJATHA,RAVI V HOSMANI

disallowance on account of non deduction of tax under 5 Section 195 in violation of a specific provisions of the Act and should not be eligible for incentive under Section 10A? 3. Whether the Tribunal was justified on the facts and circumstances of the case the Tribunal is right in law in directing the assessing authority to exclude the leased

COMMISSONER OF INCOME TAX vs. M/S SHAW WALLACE

In the result, the appeal fails and is hereby

Bench: ALOK ARADHE,H.T. NARENDRA PRASAD

disallowance under Section 14A of the Act. The assessee thereupon filed an appeal before the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), who by an order dated 03.07.2006 partly allowed the appeal preferred by the assessee. The assessee as well as the revenue approached the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal by filing appeals. The Tribunal, 5 by an order dated 17.05.2013 partly allowed

THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX vs. M/S DAVANGERE DISTRICT CENTRAL CO-OPERATIVE BANK

In the result, we do not find any merit in this appeal, the same fails

Bench: SATISH CHANDRA SHARMA,V SRISHANANDA

disallowed certain amount under section 40(a)(ia). The assessing authority further refused to admit the debited amount in P/L A/c pertaining to provision for non-performing asset (NPA). The assessee challenged the said order passed by the assessing authority before Commissioner of Income Tax (CIT) of appeals. The CIT allowed the appeal and as such Revenue preferred appeal before

MANIPAL HEALTH SYSTEMS

In the result, we do not find any merit in this appeal, the same fails

Bench: ARAVIND KUMAR

disallowed certain amount under section 40(a)(ia). The assessing authority further refused to admit the debited amount in P/L A/c pertaining to provision for non-performing asset (NPA). The assessee challenged the said order passed by the assessing authority before Commissioner of Income Tax (CIT) of appeals. The CIT allowed the appeal and as such Revenue preferred appeal before

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

Bench: B.MANOHAR,VINEET SARAN

disallowance of lease rentals paid by it to the extent of Rs.2,08,080/-. The Tribunal, however dismissed the appeal of the Revenue, and partly allowed the appeal of the respondent-assessee by allowing the benefit of set-off of brought forward losses, but did not give the benefit of lease rentals paid by the assessee. Challenging the said order

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

Bench: B.MANOHAR,VINEET SARAN

disallowance of lease rentals paid by it to the extent of Rs.2,08,080/-. The Tribunal, however dismissed the appeal of the Revenue, and partly allowed the appeal of the respondent-assessee by allowing the benefit of set-off of brought forward losses, but did not give the benefit of lease rentals paid by the assessee. Challenging the said order

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

Bench: B.MANOHAR,VINEET SARAN

disallowance of lease rentals paid by it to the extent of Rs.2,08,080/-. The Tribunal, however dismissed the appeal of the Revenue, and partly allowed the appeal of the respondent-assessee by allowing the benefit of set-off of brought forward losses, but did not give the benefit of lease rentals paid by the assessee. Challenging the said order

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

Bench: B.MANOHAR,VINEET SARAN

disallowance of lease rentals paid by it to the extent of Rs.2,08,080/-. The Tribunal, however dismissed the appeal of the Revenue, and partly allowed the appeal of the respondent-assessee by allowing the benefit of set-off of brought forward losses, but did not give the benefit of lease rentals paid by the assessee. Challenging the said order

PR COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX vs. M/S GMR SPORTS PVT LTD

In the result, the appeals are disposed of

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

disallowed in respect of balance amount of Rs.28,31,47,200/-. The assessee thereupon filed an appeal before the Commissioner 8 of Income Tax (Appeals), who by an order dated 31.07.2014 directed the Assessing Officer to treat the franchise fees as revenue expenditure and delete the addition. It was held by the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) that in terms

PR. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX vs. M/S. GMR SPORTS PVT. LTD.,

In the result, the appeals are disposed of

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

disallowed in respect of balance amount of Rs.28,31,47,200/-. The assessee thereupon filed an appeal before the Commissioner 8 of Income Tax (Appeals), who by an order dated 31.07.2014 directed the Assessing Officer to treat the franchise fees as revenue expenditure and delete the addition. It was held by the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) that in terms

PR. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX vs. M/S. GMR SPORTS PVT. LTD.,

In the result, the appeals are disposed of

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

disallowed in respect of balance amount of Rs.28,31,47,200/-. The assessee thereupon filed an appeal before the Commissioner 8 of Income Tax (Appeals), who by an order dated 31.07.2014 directed the Assessing Officer to treat the franchise fees as revenue expenditure and delete the addition. It was held by the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) that in terms

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

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 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 PR COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX vs. M/S EXIDE LIFE INSURANCE COMPANY LTD

In the result, both the appeals stand dismissed

Bench: S.SUJATHA,RAVI V HOSMANI

disallowance of surplus from shareholders account treated as income from other sources by assessee by holding that surplus available both in Policy Holder’s 6 Account and share Holder’s account is to be consolidated and net surplus only to be taxed as income from business without appreciating that income from life insurance business is treated differently when compared

THE PR COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX vs. M/S EXIDE LIFE INSURANCE CO LTD

In the result, both the appeals stand dismissed

Bench: S.SUJATHA,RAVI V HOSMANI

disallowance of surplus from shareholders account treated as income from other sources by assessee by holding that surplus available both in Policy Holder’s 6 Account and share Holder’s account is to be consolidated and net surplus only to be taxed as income from business without appreciating that income from life insurance business is treated differently when compared