THE PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER vs. M/S OBULAPURAM MINING

Bench: K.SOMASHEKAR,UMESH M ADIGA

45. Perusal of the provisions of sub section (2) of section 92A, for the purpose of Sub Section (1) of section 92A, at least one condition out of 13 conditions prescribed in sub section (2) as per clause (a) to (m) has to be satisfied. Since, the only one share 48 of GLATIPL was held by ILSGL and the assessee

SRI N GOVINDARAJU vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER

Appeal stands disposed of

Bench: S.SUJATHA,VINEET SARAN

45 of the Act provides for how profit or gain arising from transfer of capital asset is to be charged to income tax as ‘Capital gains’. Sub-section (2) provides that the ‘fair market value’ of the asset would be deemed to be the ‘full value of the consideration’ on the relevant date. Section 55(2

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

Bench: S.SUJATHA,VINEET KOTHARI

Section 2(22)(e) of the Act was wholly uncalled for and thus the learned counsel for the Assessee urged that the present appeal of the Assessee deserves to be allowed and the substantial question of law deserves to be answered in favour of the Assessee. 41. On the other hand, the learned counsel for the Revenue, Mr. Aravind

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

The appeals stand disposed of, accordingly

Bench: N.KUMAR,B.SREENIVASE GOWDA

2) was issued on 09.11.2001. The assessee moved a rectification application u/s 154 for having wrongly claimed deduction u/s 80HHC at 100% instead of 80%. Rectification order was passed on - 18 - 19.02.2002 and the income was determined at Rs.114,72,43,817/- u/s 143(1) read with Section 154. Notice u/s 142(1) was issued on 21.12.2001 with a questionnaire

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

The appeals stand disposed of, accordingly

Bench: N.KUMAR,B.SREENIVASE GOWDA

2) was issued on 09.11.2001. The assessee moved a rectification application u/s 154 for having wrongly claimed deduction u/s 80HHC at 100% instead of 80%. Rectification order was passed on - 18 - 19.02.2002 and the income was determined at Rs.114,72,43,817/- u/s 143(1) read with Section 154. Notice u/s 142(1) was issued on 21.12.2001 with a questionnaire

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

THE PR. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX vs. M/S CISCO SYSTEMS

The appeals are allowed; the impugned

Bench: SATISH CHANDRA SHARMA,R. NATARAJ

disallowed the excess depreciation claimed on networking equipments. 3. The Principal Commissioner of Income Tax, Bengaluru, thereafter issued a notice under Section 263 of the Act of 1961 on 5.3.2015 and called upon the assessee to explain as to why the assessment order passed by the assessing officer under Section 143(3) of the Act of 1961 should

THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX LTU vs. M/S. CANARA BANK

The appeal stands disposed of as

Bench: SATISH CHANDRA SHARMA,R. NATARAJ

2. Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal is right in law in setting aside the disallowance of claim of deduction on account of commission on locker rent received in advance of Rs.112.84 Crore by following the decision of Apex Court in the case of CIT vs. EXCEL INDUSRIES (reported in 358 ITR page

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

disallowed as it was not meant for management of construction, but on other expenses, such as advertisement, sales promotion etc. Therefore, the income had to be assessed under the head income from other sources. The Tribunal held that the income had to be assessed as business income and the assessee could not have received a sum of Rs.78.25 lakh without

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

disallowed as it was not meant for management of construction, but on other expenses, such as advertisement, sales promotion etc. Therefore, the income had to be assessed under the head income from other sources. The Tribunal held that the income had to be assessed as business income and the assessee could not have received a sum of Rs.78.25 lakh without

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

disallowed as it was not meant for management of construction, but on other expenses, such as advertisement, sales promotion etc. Therefore, the income had to be assessed under the head income from other sources. The Tribunal held that the income had to be assessed as business income and the assessee could not have received a sum of Rs.78.25 lakh without

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

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

45 assessee under Section 35(2AB) would fall within the said provision or outside. This exercise of examining the correctness of the Certificate issued by the prescribed authority is not available to the assessing Officer as could be seen from scheme of Section 35 of the Act. 28. It is in this background, sub-section (4) of Section 43 will

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

Bench: K.SOMASHEKAR,UMESH M ADIGA

45,96,38,679 Interest Income Smt.Lakshmi Aruna 2,42,26,434 Ms.G.Bramhani (Minor daughter) 9,90,386 Master G.Kireeti (Minor son) 6,33,782 2,58,50,602 Gross Total Income 48,73,08,092 Tax thereon 14,60,43,427 Add:Education Cess @ 3% 43,81,302 Total tax 15,04,24,729 Less

M/S. EVERGREEN HARDWARE STORES vs. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF

Appeal is allowed

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

disallowance of Rs.53,367/- under Section 14A of the IT Act; 1 Business Transfer Agreement 2 The Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeal) I.T.A No.201/2017 5 (ii) addition under Section 45