THE PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER vs. M/S OBULAPURAM MINING

Bench: K.SOMASHEKAR,UMESH M ADIGA

2) Disallowance of Expenses under Explanation to section 37 (1) and 3) Addition made on account of sale of Land. He submitted that all these three issues are covered in favor of the assessee by the tribunal order rendered in assessee's own case for A. Y. 2010-11 in ITA No. 653/Bang/2015 dated 29.07.2016 and accordingly, in the present

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

Bench: S.SUJATHA,VINEET KOTHARI

2)(v) of the Income Tax Act and it allowed the expenditure as “current repairs to the existing machinery”. The Apex Court upholding the said Order of the learned Tribunal held that such Order could be passed within its powers under Section 33(4) of the Act to pass such Orders ‘as it thinks fit’. Date of Judgment

SRI N GOVINDARAJU vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER

Appeal stands disposed of

Bench: S.SUJATHA,VINEET SARAN

56 yrs, S/o Narayanappa # 101, Divyashree Residency H D Devegowda Road R T Nagar, Bangalore 32 Appellant (By Sri A Shankar, Adv. for Sri V S Yogesh Kumar, Adv.)) And 1 Income Tax Officer Ward 8(2), Bangalore 82 2 Commissioner of Income Tax Appeals II, Bangalore 82 Respondents (By Sri E Sanmathi Indrakumar, Adv.) Appeal is filed under S.260

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 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

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 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. 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

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

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

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

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 15. Of these the assessing officer found that to the extent given in column (III) above, the appellant was unable to substantiate the said expenses claimed before the assessing officer. 16.In respect of assessment

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

M/S ANS CONSTRUCTIONS LTD vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF COMMERCIAL

Bench: The Hon’Ble Mrs.Justice S.Sujatha

disallowed the claim of input tax credit. It is beneficial to refer to the relevant paragraphs which reads thus: “12. It is contended on behalf of the assessee that, once input tax has been paid, by virtue of Section 10 the assessee is entitled to the rebate of the tax against the output tax notwithstanding the fact that such

THE PR. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, vs. THE TOTAGARS CO-OPERATIVE SALE SOCIETY,

The appeal is dismissed

Bench: SREENIVAS HARISH KUMAR,RAGHVENDRA S. CHAUHAN

disallowed deduction claimed u/S 80P(2)(d) of the Income Tax Act and in the light of the decision of the Supreme Court with regard to the same exact assessee as the present one, namely, The Totgars Co-operative Sale Society Ltd., Vs. Income Tax Officer in Civil Appeal Nos.1622 to 1629/2010 decided by the Apex Court

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

Bench: B.MANOHAR,K.SREEDHAR RAO

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.1,50,56,903/- under Section 80-IB and Rs.19,00,000/- towards the litigation expenditures. In the Profit and Loss account, it is shown that the assessee

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 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