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)

5. It was contended on behalf of the petitioner that fringe benefit tax is double levy in the hands of the employer. It is submitted that the expenditure allowed under section 37 of the Act is considered for the purpose of fringe benefit tax. The expenditure being personal in nature disallowed under section 37 of the Act is outside

THE PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER vs. M/S OBULAPURAM MINING

Bench: K.SOMASHEKAR,UMESH M ADIGA

5 (a) In respect of sale of iron ore 111,48,68,440/- (b) In respect of Helicopter Hiring Charges 72,23,641/- Total adjustments Rs.112,20,92,081/- 7. It is further stated that the draft assessment order came to be passed under section 144C read with Section 143(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 by adopting

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

The appeals stand disposed of, accordingly

Bench: N.KUMAR,B.SREENIVASE GOWDA

5) of the Act defines the mandatory requirements and the time limit for rectification and the assessee has not filed any revised return for claim of tax credit with reference to income computed under Section 10A. - 28 - 17. Thereafter, the Assessing Authority proceeded to decide the claim on merits also. Insofar as assessment year 2001-02 is concerned

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

The appeals stand disposed of, accordingly

Bench: N.KUMAR,B.SREENIVASE GOWDA

5) of the Act defines the mandatory requirements and the time limit for rectification and the assessee has not filed any revised return for claim of tax credit with reference to income computed under Section 10A. - 28 - 17. Thereafter, the Assessing Authority proceeded to decide the claim on merits also. Insofar as assessment year 2001-02 is concerned

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

Bench: K.SOMASHEKAR,UMESH M ADIGA

5 total income under the original assessment order passed. However, it was noticed that though the assessment proceedings was initiated by issue of notice under Section 143(2), The Tribunal vide said order also knocked down the assessment proceedings completed under Section 144 read with Section 153D on similar ground that no satisfaction note was recorded by the assessing officer

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

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

5 - (BY SRI: K.P. KUMAR, SENIOR COUNSEL FOR SRI. T. SURYANARAYANA, ADVOCATE) ***** THIS ITA IS FILED UNDER SEC.260-A OF INCOME TAX ACT 1961, ARISING OUT OF ORDER DATED:25/04/2014 PASSED IN ITA.NO.906/BANG/2013, FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2009-2010 AND ETC., IN I.T.A.Nos.400/2014 & 351/2015 BETWEEN: 1. THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, C.R. BUILDING, QUEENS ROAD, BANGALORE. 2. THE DEPUTY

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

5 - (BY SRI: K.P. KUMAR, SENIOR COUNSEL FOR SRI. T. SURYANARAYANA, ADVOCATE) ***** THIS ITA IS FILED UNDER SEC.260-A OF INCOME TAX ACT 1961, ARISING OUT OF ORDER DATED:25/04/2014 PASSED IN ITA.NO.906/BANG/2013, FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2009-2010 AND ETC., IN I.T.A.Nos.400/2014 & 351/2015 BETWEEN: 1. THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, C.R. BUILDING, QUEENS ROAD, BANGALORE. 2. THE DEPUTY

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

5 - (BY SRI: K.P. KUMAR, SENIOR COUNSEL FOR SRI. T. SURYANARAYANA, ADVOCATE) ***** THIS ITA IS FILED UNDER SEC.260-A OF INCOME TAX ACT 1961, ARISING OUT OF ORDER DATED:25/04/2014 PASSED IN ITA.NO.906/BANG/2013, FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2009-2010 AND ETC., IN I.T.A.Nos.400/2014 & 351/2015 BETWEEN: 1. THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, C.R. BUILDING, QUEENS ROAD, BANGALORE. 2. THE DEPUTY

SRI N GOVINDARAJU vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER

Appeal stands disposed of

Bench: S.SUJATHA,VINEET SARAN

5 of 2010 issued by the CBDT (already reproduced above) also makes this position clear. In our view, there is no conflict between the main section 147 and its Explanation 3. This Explanation has been inserted only to clarify the main section and not 26 curtail its scope. Insertion of Explanation 3 is thus clarificatory and is for the benefit

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

Bench: S.SUJATHA,VINEET KOTHARI

B”, vide its Order dated 22/02/2017 for AY 2011-12 held partly in favour of the Appellant – Assessee that Appellant Assessee was not liable to pay tax on ‘Distribution of Dividend’ as defined under Section 2(22)(d) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as the ‘Act’ for short) in terms of Section

M/S J K CEMENT WORKS vs. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA

Bench: H.B.PRABHAKARA SASTRY,VINEET KOTHARI

b) Input tax shall not be deducted by an agent purchasing or selling goods on behalf of any other person other than a non-resident principal. (c) Input tax shall not be deducted by any dealer executing a works contract, (i) in respect of the amount paid or payable to any sub-contractor as the consideration for execution of part

THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX vs. PRAVEEN V DODDANAVAR

Bench: SREENIVAS HARISH KUMAR,VINEET KOTHARI

b) Input tax shall not be deducted by an agent purchasing or selling goods on behalf of any other person other than a non-resident principal. (c) Input tax shall not be deducted by any dealer executing a works contract, (i) in respect of the amount paid or payable to any sub-contractor as the consideration for execution of part

THE BAILHONGAL URBAN COOPERATIVE BANK LTD vs. THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX

Bench: S.ABDUL NAZEER,P.S.DINESH KUMAR

b) Input tax shall not be deducted by an agent purchasing or selling goods on behalf of any other person other than a non-resident principal. (c) Input tax shall not be deducted by any dealer executing a works contract, (i) in respect of the amount paid or payable to any sub-contractor as the consideration for execution of part

COFFEEDAY GLOBAL LTD. vs. ADDITIONAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX

In the result, the orders dated 21

Bench: ALOK ARADHE,ASHOK S.KINAGI

5. Learned counsel for the assessee submitted that the assessee had made investments by way of share application money in one of its foreign subsidiary viz., A.N.Coffeeday for an amount of Rs.17,47,54,752/-, whereas, the assessee's own fund were to the extent of Rs.386,91,31,076/- which were far in excess of the investment made

COFFEEDAY GLOBAL LTD. vs. ADDITIONAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX

In the result, the orders dated 21

Bench: ALOK ARADHE,ASHOK S.KINAGI

5. Learned counsel for the assessee submitted that the assessee had made investments by way of share application money in one of its foreign subsidiary viz., A.N.Coffeeday for an amount of Rs.17,47,54,752/-, whereas, the assessee's own fund were to the extent of Rs.386,91,31,076/- which were far in excess of the investment made

PR. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX vs. M/S AMALGAMATED BEAN COFFEE TRADING CO LTD

In the result, the orders dated 21

Bench: ALOK ARADHE,ASHOK S.KINAGI

5. Learned counsel for the assessee submitted that the assessee had made investments by way of share application money in one of its foreign subsidiary viz., A.N.Coffeeday for an amount of Rs.17,47,54,752/-, whereas, the assessee's own fund were to the extent of Rs.386,91,31,076/- which were far in excess of the investment made

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