M/S THE TOTGARS CO-OPERATIVE SALE SOCIETY LTD., vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER

In the result, we pass the following:

Bench: B.S PATIL,P.S.DINESH KUMAR

disallowing the claim of the appellant to deduct the cost and expenditure incurred in earning income under the head “income from other sources”. 2. The appellant is a Co-operative Society in the business of marketing agricultural produce and provide credit facilities to its members. For the assessment years 1991-92 to 1999-2000, appellant had claimed deduction under Section

THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX vs. M/S RAJMAHAL SILKS

The appeal is disposed of

Bench: ALOK ARADHE,H.T. NARENDRA PRASAD

disallowance of Rs.1,82,83,210/- was not justified even though the same was contrary to Section 40a(ia) of the Act without assigning any reason and consequently recorded a perverse finding? (iii) Whether the Tribunal was correct in holding that a sum of Rs.36,56

THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX vs. M/S VESESH INFOTECHNICS LIMITEDD

Bench: B.MANOHAR,K.SREEDHAR RAO

Section 80-IA was disallowed. 4. For the assessment year 2000-2001, the assessee filed the Income Tax returns on 30-11-2000 declaring the total income of Rs.1,11,76,800/- and claiming deduction of Rs.1,50,56

THE PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER vs. M/S OBULAPURAM MINING

Bench: K.SOMASHEKAR,UMESH M ADIGA

section 37 (1) is not attracted in the facts of the present case. In view of our above discussion, ground no.3 of the assessee is allowed. 56 21. We have heard the rival submissions. We find force in the submission of the ld. AR of the assessee because we find that the amount of Rs.86,60,079/- for which addition

GMR INFRASTRUCTURE LIMITED vs. THE DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX

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

Bench: ALOK ARADHE,HEMANT CHANDANGOUDAR

Disallowance of claim made under Section 37(1) of Rs.1,08,333/- being expenditure on account of club membership fees. 3. The Assessing Officer determined the total income at Rs.Nil as against the amount of returned loss of Rs.5,87,56

THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, vs. SHRIDHAR SHANTINATH PATRAVALI,

Bench: This Court : I. Whether On Facts & In Law The Tribunal Is Right In Ignoring The Provisions Of Second & Third Provisos To Section 194C(3), As Per Which The Assessee Respondent Was Under Obligation To Furnish Particulars Of The Declaration Filed By The Sub-Contractors In Form No.15-I Within Due Date I.E., 30.06.2008, In The Manner Prescribed I.E., Form No. 15J, To The Prescribed Authority & Failure To Do So, Attracts Violation Of Provisions Of Section 194C(3) Viz., Disallowance Under Section 40(A)(Ia)?

Section 263 of the Act by determining the revised income at Rs.57,56,290/- , along with other additions, an addition of Rs.48,61,154/- was also made to the total income of the assessee. The latter amount is the amount of disallowance

M/S. RAO COMPUTERS CONSULTANTS PVT LTD vs. THE JOINT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, (OSD)

In the result, the appeal is allowed

Bench: ALOK ARADHE,HEMANT CHANDANGOUDAR

disallowing the expenditure incurred wholly and exclusively for the purposes of the business of complex commercial letting out services and whether the findings of the Appellate Tribunal in this regard are perverse? (4) Whether on the facts and circumstances of the case, the findings of the authorities below that, receipts on account of sale of software technical 4 services being

M/S. RAO COMPUTER CONSULTANTS PVT LTD vs. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX

In the result, the appeal is allowed

Bench: ALOK ARADHE,HEMANT CHANDANGOUDAR

disallowing the expenditure incurred wholly and exclusively for the purposes of the business of complex commercial letting out services and whether the findings of the Appellate Tribunal in this regard are perverse? (6) Whether on the facts and circumstances of the case, the findings of the authorities below that, receipts on account of sale of software technical services being meager

M/S. RAO COMPUTER CONSULTANTS PVT LTD vs. THE JOINT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (OSD)

In the result, the appeal is allowed

Bench: ALOK ARADHE,HEMANT CHANDANGOUDAR

disallowing the expenditure incurred wholly and exclusively for the purposes of the business of complex commercial letting out services and whether the findings of the Appellate Tribunal in this regard are perverse? (4) Whether on the facts and circumstances of the case, the findings of 4 the authorities below that, receipts on account of sale of software technical services being

M/S. RAO COMPUTERS CONSULTANTS PVT LTD vs. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX

In the result, the appeal is allowed

Bench: ALOK ARADHE,HEMANT CHANDANGOUDAR

disallowing the expenditure incurred wholly and exclusively for the purposes of the business of complex commercial letting out services and whether the findings of the Appellate Tribunal in this regard are perverse? 5 (6) Whether on the facts and circumstances of the case, the findings of the authorities below that, receipts on account of sale of software technical services being

M/S NAM ESTATES PVT. LTD. vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER

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

Bench: ALOK ARADHE,H.T. NARENDRA PRASAD

disallowance under sub- 9 Section (3) of Section 40A shall be made no payment shall be deemed to be the profits and gains of business or profession under sub-Section (3A) of Section 40A where a payment or aggregate of payments made to a person in a day, otherwise than by an account payee cheque drawn on a bank

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

PR. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX vs. M/S SASKEN

Appeals are dismissed at the stage of admission

Bench: ABHAY SHREENIWAS OKA (CJ),S.G.PANDIT

disallowance of deduction under Section 10A in respect of deemed export on account of sale to another STP unit, the Tribunal, relying upon the decision of Tata Elxsi Ltd. (supra), held in favour of the assessee. Aggrieved by the order of the Tribunal, the revenue has I.T.A.Nos.44-45/2016 - 5 - preferred these appeals urging the following four substantial questions

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 AGRICULTURAL PRODUCE MARKET COMMITTEE

Bench: S.SUJATHA,VINEET KOTHARI

disallow the claim of Depreciation under Section 32 of the Act in the hands of the Assessee, being a Charitable Trust and [ii] requirement to comply with the procedure under Section 11[2] of the Act, if the accumulated income not spent for charitable purpose exceeded 15% of the income during the year. 3. The learned Tribunal found that

THE PR.COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIT (A) vs. M/S AGRICULTURAL PRODUCE MARKET COMMITTEE

Bench: S.SUJATHA,VINEET KOTHARI

disallow the claim of Depreciation under Section 32 of the Act in the hands of the Assessee, being a Charitable Trust and [ii] requirement to comply with the procedure under Section 11[2] of the Act, if the accumulated income not spent for charitable purpose exceeded 15% of the income during the year. 3. The learned Tribunal found that