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

In the result, I proceed to pass the following:

Bench: The Hon’Ble Mr.Justice Aravind Kumar

Section 35(2AB) in respect of Research and Development expenditure in a sum of ` 89,35,48,193/-, a sum of ` 48,41,82,071/- was disallowed and same came to be added to the income of assessee-company. Further, a sum of `2,63,68

PR. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX vs. M/S SUBRAMANYA CONSTRUCTIONS

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

Bench: ALOK ARADHE,M.G.S. KAMAL

Section 143(1) of the Act. The case of the assessee was selected for scrutiny and the Assessing Officer concluded the assessment by an order dated 07.12.2012 and determined the total income of the assessee at Rs.9,02,58,727/- instead of Rs.4,06,68,720/- by making disallowance

PR,COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX vs. M/S SUBRAMANYA CONSTRUCTIONS

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

Bench: ALOK ARADHE,M.G.S. KAMAL

Section 143(1) of the Act. The case of the assessee was selected for scrutiny and the Assessing Officer concluded the assessment by an order dated 07.12.2012 and determined the total income of the assessee at Rs.9,02,58,727/- instead of Rs.4,06,68,720/- by making disallowance

THE PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CIT(A) vs. SHRI.S.S. BAKKESH

In the result, both the appeals filed by the Revenue are

Bench: D K SINGH,VENKATESH NAIK T

disallowance under Section 68 of the Act for Rs.15,70,650/- and treated sale proceeds of bio- compost of Rs.9

G. SHUBHA DEVI vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER

Bench: S.SUJATHA,VINEET KOTHARI

DISALLOWING THE INTEREST ORDERED TO BE CHANGED UNDER SECTION 234A & B OF THE INCOME TAX ACT, 1961 PRODUCED AS ANNEXURE B AND 3) TO ALLOW THIS APPEAL WITH COSTS TO MEET THE ENDS OF JUSTICE. THIS ITA COMING ON FOR ADMISSION THIS DAY, VINEET KOTHARI, J., DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: JUDGMENT Mr.S A Padmanabha, Adv for Appellant Mr.K V Aravind

THE PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER vs. M/S OBULAPURAM MINING

Bench: K.SOMASHEKAR,UMESH M ADIGA

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 above adjustments to the value of the international transactions

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

The appeal is disposed of

Bench: ALOK ARADHE,H.T. NARENDRA PRASAD

68,815/- expenses claimed towards transportation charges were not allowable despite the transporters adducing evidence that they did not execute these transactions and the 3 payments received were only book entries which evidence was not taken into consideration in the proper perspective and consequently recorded a perverse finding? (ii) Whether the Tribunal was correct in holding that the disallowance

SHRI NARAYAN RAO HEBRI vs. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX

The appeal stands dismissed

Bench: S.G.PANDIT,K. V. ARAVIND

68, when the conditions of the said section are not satisfied. 5.2. The Learned Commissioner (Appeals) is not justified in upholding the impugned addition when the Appellant established that he had sufficient source for deposit of cash to the bank account. 5.3. The Lower Authorities are not justified in rejecting the explanation of the Appellant of cash withdrawals being

M/S.M K AGROTECH PRIVATE LTD vs. THE ADDL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX

The appeal is allowed

Bench: The Hon'Ble Mr. Justice Ravi Malimath

68,16,400/-. The return was processed determining a refund payable of Rs.20,60,121/-. The case was selected for scrutiny and a notice under Section 143(2) of the Income Tax Act, 1961, (for short, ‘the Act’) was issued. The Assessing Officer disallowed

THE PR. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX vs. M/S FIBRES AND FABRICS INTERNATIONAL PVT. LTD.,

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

Bench: ALOK ARADHE,HEMANT CHANDANGOUDAR

Section 143(3) for A.Y.2006-07 the expenses debited under this head of Rs.10,68,71,384/- was disallowed and added

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

THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, vs. M/S BAHUBALI NEMINATH MUTTIN,

The appeals are dismissed

Bench: ANAND BYRAREDDY,RAGHVENDRA S.CHAUHAN

Section 68 of the I.T. Act being the undisclosed income of Rs.10,72,247/- (iv) Disallowance under Section 40A (3) of the I.T. Act being

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

THE DIRECTOR OF INCOME TAX vs. INDIA HERITAGE FOUNDATION

The appeal is disposed of

Bench: ALOK ARADHE,H.T. NARENDRA PRASAD

disallow the deduction as claimed by the assessee under Section 80IB(10) of the Act and to carry out the assessment 5 afresh in accordance with law after affording an opportunity of hearing to the assessee. 3. Being aggrieved, the assessee filed an appeal before the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Tribunal’, for short). The Tribunal

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

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX vs. M/S GULBARGA ELECTRICITY SUPPLY COMPANY LTD.

Accordingly, appeal of Revenue is dismissed

Bench: B.VEERAPPA,VINEET KOTHARI

disallowance on that account of and therefore, the order passed by the Tribunal is not a speaking order and same is liable to be set-aside. He further contended that the CIT (Appeals) was not justified in holding that when a separate invoice is raised, no deduction is permissible under Section 194C of the Act. Therefore, he prayed to allow