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

The appeals stand disposed of, accordingly

Bench: N.KUMAR,B.SREENIVASE GOWDA

Section 154. Notice u/s 142(1) was issued on 21.12.2001 with a questionnaire. Further notices u/s 142 (1) were issued on various dates beginning from 7.10.2003 to 8.3.2004. The assessee- company filed written replies along with enclosures from time to time. The return furnished on 30.10.2001 was processed u/s 143(3) of the I.T.Act on 24.03.2004 and order was passed

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

Bench: K.SOMASHEKAR,UMESH M ADIGA

66,559 13 Total Tax 10,16,70,745 Less: 140A paid 2,00,00,000 Net Amount Payable 8,16,70,745 13. It is further contended by the standing counsel for the appellant, that against the order passed by the Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle 1(3), Bangalore dated 31.03.2013, further an appeal was preferred before

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

Bench: K.SOMASHEKAR,UMESH M ADIGA

66,559 Total Tax 10,16,70,745 Less: 140A paid 2,00,00,000 Net Amount Payable 8,16,70,745 11.It is further contended by the standing councel for the appellant /Revenue that against the order passed by the Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle 1(3), Bangalore dated 31.03.2013 an appeal was preferred before the Commissioner

THE PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER vs. M/S OBULAPURAM MINING

Bench: K.SOMASHEKAR,UMESH M ADIGA

disallowance can be made in the hands of the assessee company. However, the assessing officer of the concerned Director is at liberty to make additions as per law in the hands of the concerned director. Accordingly, ground No.4 of the assessee is also allowed. Insofar as ground No.5 it was submitted that the AR of the assessee that

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

MANGALORE REFINERY AND PETROCHEMICALS LTD vs. PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX

In the result, I pass the following:-

Bench: The Hon'Ble Mr.Justice S.R.Krishna Kumar

66,00,074 Disallowance of Depreciation 15,35,39,722 Disallowance under section 14A of the IT Act 3,84,26,370 Assessment Year - 2009-10 Particulars AY 2009-10 Disallowance of freight charges under section 40(a)(i) of the IT Act 80,19,59,658 Disallowance of Depreciation 13,09,37,839 Disallowance under section

MANGALORE REFINERY AND PETROCHEMICALS LTD vs. PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX

In the result, I pass the following:-

Bench: The Hon'Ble Mr.Justice S.R.Krishna Kumar

66,00,074 Disallowance of Depreciation 15,35,39,722 Disallowance under section 14A of the IT Act 3,84,26,370 Assessment Year - 2009-10 Particulars AY 2009-10 Disallowance of freight charges under section 40(a)(i) of the IT Act 80,19,59,658 Disallowance of Depreciation 13,09,37,839 Disallowance under section

THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX vs. TEXAS INSTRUMENTS INDIA PVT LTD

The appeals are dismissed

Bench: SATISH CHANDRA SHARMA,SURAJ GOVINDARAJ

1. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal is right in law in setting aside the disallowance of Rs.7,57,22,069 made under section 80JJAA of the Act by holding that the employees in software industry are covered by definition of ‘Workman’ in Explanation (iii) to section 80JJAA of the Act read with

THE PR. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX vs. M/S. TE CONNECTIVITY INDIA PVT. LTD.,

Accordingly dispose of the appeal as allowed

Bench: ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE,S RACHAIAH

1), 2ND FLOOR, BMTC BUILDING, 80 FEET ROAD, KORMANGALA, BENGALURU - 560 095. ...APPELLANTS (BY SRI. SUSHAL TIWARI N, ADVOCATE) AND: M/S. TE CONNECTIVITY INDIA PVT. LTD., TE PARK, 22B, DODDENAKUNDI CORPORATION, 2ND PHASE, INDUSTRIAL AREA, WHITEFIELD ROAD, BENGALURU - 560 048. PAN: AABCT7474C …RESPONDENT (BY SRI. K. SURYANARAYANA, SENIOR ADVOCATE FOR SMT. TANMAYEE RAJKUMAR, ADVOCATE) THIS ITA IS FILED UNDER SECTION

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

Bench: S.SUJATHA,VINEET KOTHARI

disallowed the depreciation and the High Court affirmed the decision of the Tribunal. On appeal to the Supreme Court: Held, that under Section 254 (1) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, the Appellate Tribunal had no power to take back the benefit conferred by the assessing Officer or enhance the assessment. Since the Assessing Officer had granted depreciation in respect

M/S SUBEX LTD vs. THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-III,

In the result, appeal is partly allowed as indicated

Bench: S.SUJATHA,RAVI V HOSMANI

disallowed subsequently, without disturbing the decision in the initial year. Post action of the Assessing Officer in modifying the original order would not cure the flaw pointed out in Shasun Chemicals and Drugs Ltd., supra. We answer this issue in favour of the assessee and against the Revenue. Re. Substantial Question of Law No.2: 13. Learned counsel for both sides

RNS INFRASTRUCTURE LIMITED vs. INCOME TAX SETTLEMENT COMMISSIONER

In the result, writ petitions are allowed

Bench: The Hon’Ble Mr. Justice L. Narayana Swamy Writ Petition Nos.46275-46289 Of 2016 (T-It)

1)(c) of the Act for all the six years as per its order dated 27th May 2016. On 7 the application filed by the petitioner under Section 245D(6D) of the Act the respondent No.1 has passed an order on 11th August 2016 rejecting the application on untenable grounds. 8. Respondent No.1 did not apply for certified copy immediately

THE PR COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX vs. M/S HINDUSTAN AERONAUTICS LTD

In the result, the order of the

Bench: ALOK ARADHE,H.T. NARENDRA PRASAD

disallowance of its claim under Section 14A of the Act was made. The revenue has filed an appeal being aggrieved by the order of the tribunal granting the alternate relief to the assessee for Research and Development expenses under Section 35(1)(iv) of the Act. 8 6. Learned counsel for the assessee submitted that the authorities under

HINDUSTAN AERONAUTICS LIMITED vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER

In the result, the order of the

Bench: ALOK ARADHE,H.T. NARENDRA PRASAD

disallowance of its claim under Section 14A of the Act was made. The revenue has filed an appeal being aggrieved by the order of the tribunal granting the alternate relief to the assessee for Research and Development expenses under Section 35(1)(iv) of the Act. 8 6. Learned counsel for the assessee submitted that the authorities under

M/S CANARA BANK BSCA SECTION vs. THE ASST COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE-11(2)

Bench: N.KUMAR,RATHNAKALA

1] on 26.11.2001 which was received by the assessee on the same day. The assessee had claimed disallowance under section 14A of the Act in a sum of Rs.16,50,00,000/-. The assessee had claimed the following income as exempt under section 10 of the Act. - 6 - [a] Dividends u/s. 10[33] Rs. 52,00,27,446/- [b] Interest

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)

disallowed under section 37 of the Act is outside the purview of fringe benefit tax as explained by CBDT Circular dated 29/8/2005 in response to Question No.35. Hence the contention of the assessee that levy of fringe benefit tax is double taxation is incorrect. 6. It is submitted that the petitioner has contended that the benefits/expenses can be taxed