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

The appeals stand disposed of, accordingly

Bench: N.KUMAR,B.SREENIVASE GOWDA

67. Whether the amendment to Section 90(1) vide Finance Act, 2003 is retrospective in operation or is clarificatory in nature. The Indo-US Treaty was entered into on 20.12.1990 vide notification GSR 199(E) dated 20.12.1990. The substituted section came into force from 1.4.2004. Now the question is whether provision is retrospective in operation or clarificatory in nature

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

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

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. 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 PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER vs. M/S OBULAPURAM MINING

Bench: K.SOMASHEKAR,UMESH M ADIGA

disallowance of Rs.220,89,67,632/- on the allegations 48 based on surmises and conjectures, and hear-say evidences to the effect that 40% of the business is illegal and therefore explanation (1) to Section

PR.COMMISSIONER OF INCOMETAX-2 vs. M/S.EYGBS (INDIA) PVT LTD

Bench: CHIEF JUSTICE,C M JOSHI

1. For the reasons stated in the applications ― I.A.No.1/2025, the same are allowed. The delay of 46 days in filing the above captioned appeals, is condoned. 2. The Revenue have filed the present appeals under Section 260A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 [the Act], impugning a common order dated 08.11.2024 [impugned order], passed by the learned Income

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

disallowance under section 40(a)(i), the disputed tax which 15 is subject matter of departmental appeal before the High Court is as under:- AYs Tax Arrears Disputed tax [i.e., tax @ 33.99% on disputed income] Payable under VsVs @ 50% of tax 2008-09 37,28,12,027 12,67

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

disallowance under section 40(a)(i), the disputed tax which 15 is subject matter of departmental appeal before the High Court is as under:- AYs Tax Arrears Disputed tax [i.e., tax @ 33.99% on disputed income] Payable under VsVs @ 50% of tax 2008-09 37,28,12,027 12,67

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

The appeals are dismissed

Bench: SATISH CHANDRA SHARMA,SURAJ GOVINDARAJ

1) shall be liable to deduct income-tax under this section. (6) No deduction shall be made from any sum credited or paid or likely to be credited or paid during the previous year to the account of a contractor during the course of business of plying, hiring or leasing goods carriages, where such contractor owns ten or less goods

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

disallowance and this is clearly contrary to law. 6. In view of the above discussion, the assessee's reply cannot be accepted. 7. In Cochin International Airport Ltd. (92 taxmann.com 277), the Hon'ble ITAT Cochin have explained the provisions of section 263 and observed as follows: 7.1 In order to ascertain whether an order sought to be revised under

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

67 taxmann.com 6 (Gujarat)], the High Court of Gujarat, while considering the correctness of the order of the Commissioner of Income tax under Section 263 of the Act read with Section 35D of the Act relating to the assessment year 2007-08 observed that, the Tribunal, has recorded that the first year of the claim under Section

XIAOMI TECHNOLOGY INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX

In the result, I pass the following:

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

disallowed. On 10.08.2022, petitioner submitted a detailed response along with documents and contested the said Notice and proceedings. - 6 - 2.3 On 11.08.2022, upon obtaining approval from the 3rd respondent, the 1st respondent passed the impugned order under Section 281B of the I.T.Act provisionally attaching the subject fixed deposits of the petitioner in a sum of INR 3,700 crores

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

PRANAVA ELECTRONICS PVT LTD vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER

In the result, the appeal is disposed of

Bench: ALOK ARADHE,H.T. NARENDRA PRASAD

1)(vii) of the Act and was eligible for deduction under the aforesaid Section. Alternatively, it is submitted that the claim of the assessee for deduction under Section 37 of the Act was not examined by the authorities. It is also submitted that while dealing with the issue relating to Section 14A of the Act, the Commissioner of Income

M/S MYSORE POLYMERS & RUBBER PRODUCTS LTD vs. THE COMMISSIONER OF COMMERCIAL TAXES

In the result, writ appeal No

Bench: D.V.SHYLENDRA KUMAR,B.S.INDRAKALA

67. The distinction is pointed out from the instant case i.e., the second and third proviso to section 5[3][a] of the Act and then proviso to section 5[3][c] of the Act. It is submitted by learned Additional Government Advocate that second and third proviso to section 5[3][a] of the Act operates only