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

Bench: K.SOMASHEKAR,UMESH M ADIGA

b) of subsection 1 of Section 153A of the Act. 9. It is further contended that Tribunal erroneously set-aside the assessment order passed for the year assessment year 2011- 12 holding that there is no satisfaction recorded by the assessing officer of the searched person (153A) in the file of the said person ignoring the intention of legislature

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

Bench: K.SOMASHEKAR,UMESH M ADIGA

b) of subsection 1 of Section 153A of the Act. 7.It is further contended that Tribunal erroneously set-aside the assessment order passed for the year assessment year 2011- 12 holding that there is no satisfaction recorded by the assessing officer of the searched person (153A) in the file of the said person ignoring the intention of legislature and even

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

The appeals stand disposed of, accordingly

Bench: N.KUMAR,B.SREENIVASE GOWDA

7. Assessee preferred an appeal before the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) [CIT(A)] which was disposed-off by the CIT(A) vide order dated 20.03.2006. Aggrieved by the said order, both the assessee and the Department preferred separate appeals before the ITAT. The ITAT, vide common order dated 30.05.2008 disposed of the appeals. Assessment Year

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

The appeals stand disposed of, accordingly

Bench: N.KUMAR,B.SREENIVASE GOWDA

7. Assessee preferred an appeal before the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) [CIT(A)] which was disposed-off by the CIT(A) vide order dated 20.03.2006. Aggrieved by the said order, both the assessee and the Department preferred separate appeals before the ITAT. The ITAT, vide common order dated 30.05.2008 disposed of the appeals. Assessment Year

THE PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER vs. M/S OBULAPURAM MINING

Bench: K.SOMASHEKAR,UMESH M ADIGA

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 and the income

M/S SAFINA HOTELS PRIVATE LIMITED vs. THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX

Appeal is allowed

Bench: S.SUJATHA,N.K.PATIL

b) of the Act proceeded to pass the order under Section 271(1)(c) of the Act. Further, it is submitted that Section 271(1B) of the Act contemplates recording of satisfaction for levy of penalty under Section 271(1)(c) of the 6 Act by the Assessing Officer. No iota of satisfaction is recorded by the Assessing Officer

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

7. That in respect of the assessment year 2004- 05, the order under Section 143(3) had been passed on 27/12/2006 and in that assessment order, all deductions were disallowed by the order passed under Section 153C, except one, which had already been disallowed. 8. The assessee filed an appeal against the assessment order dated 31/12/2012 before the Appellate Commissioner

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

7. That in respect of the assessment year 2004- 05, the order under Section 143(3) had been passed on 27/12/2006 and in that assessment order, all deductions were disallowed by the order passed under Section 153C, except one, which had already been disallowed. 8. The assessee filed an appeal against the assessment order dated 31/12/2012 before the Appellate Commissioner

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

7. That in respect of the assessment year 2004- 05, the order under Section 143(3) had been passed on 27/12/2006 and in that assessment order, all deductions were disallowed by the order passed under Section 153C, except one, which had already been disallowed. 8. The assessee filed an appeal against the assessment order dated 31/12/2012 before the Appellate Commissioner

PR. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-2 vs. M/S.J.J.GLASTRONICS PVT LTD

The appeal stands dismissed

Bench: S.SUJATHA,J.M.KHAZI

7), where an application for amendment under this section is made by the assessee or by the deductor or by the collector on or after the 1st day of June, 2001 to an income-tax authority referred to in sub-section (1), the authority shall pass an order, within a period of six months from the end of the month

COFFEEDAY GLOBAL LTD. vs. ADDITIONAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX

In the result, the orders dated 21

Bench: ALOK ARADHE,ASHOK S.KINAGI

b) and 80-IE(2)(ii) wherein the term 'expansion' is used and substantial 'expansion' is defined as increase in investment of plant 14 and machinery by a specified percentage out of book value of plant and machinery, whereas, under Section 35D(1)(ii) and proviso to Section 36(1)(iii) prior to its amendment used the word 'extension

PR. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX vs. M/S AMALGAMATED BEAN COFFEE TRADING CO LTD

In the result, the orders dated 21

Bench: ALOK ARADHE,ASHOK S.KINAGI

b) and 80-IE(2)(ii) wherein the term 'expansion' is used and substantial 'expansion' is defined as increase in investment of plant 14 and machinery by a specified percentage out of book value of plant and machinery, whereas, under Section 35D(1)(ii) and proviso to Section 36(1)(iii) prior to its amendment used the word 'extension

COFFEEDAY GLOBAL LTD. vs. ADDITIONAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX

In the result, the orders dated 21

Bench: ALOK ARADHE,ASHOK S.KINAGI

b) and 80-IE(2)(ii) wherein the term 'expansion' is used and substantial 'expansion' is defined as increase in investment of plant 14 and machinery by a specified percentage out of book value of plant and machinery, whereas, under Section 35D(1)(ii) and proviso to Section 36(1)(iii) prior to its amendment used the word 'extension

COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-III vs. M/S SYNDICATE BANK

The appeals are disposed of

Bench: ALOK ARADHE,RAVI V HOSMANI

7 the set off of short term capital gain against long term capital loss was not permissible under Section 70(3) of the Act. An order was passed withdrawing an amount of Rs.51,06,737/- from long term capital loss and same has been taxed as short term capital gains. Notices under Section 143(2) / 142(1

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

7(A)(b) of the Rules. Approval of such expenditure incurred by a company under Section 35(2AB) would be subject to conditions stipulated in clauses (a) to (d) of Rule 7A of the Rules. This would clearly indicate that the prescribed authority after receiving the application under Rule 3CK would examine the said application in the background

THE PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX vs. M/S NIRANI SUGARS LTD.,

In the result, the impugned orders passed by

Bench: ALOK ARADHE,P.G.M.PATIL

disallowance of depreciation. The assessee thereupon approached the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal. The Tribunal, by an order dated 19.02.2015 has allowed the appeal preferred by the assessee and set aside the order of the Commission of Income Tax (Appeals). The Assessing Officer was further directed to allow depreciation as per Appendix I at the higher rates. The Tribunal, inter alia

THE PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX vs. M/S NIRANI SUGARS LTD.,

In the result, the impugned orders passed by

Bench: ALOK ARADHE,P.G.M.PATIL

disallowance of depreciation. The assessee thereupon approached the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal. The Tribunal, by an order dated 19.02.2015 has allowed the appeal preferred by the assessee and set aside the order of the Commission of Income Tax (Appeals). The Assessing Officer was further directed to allow depreciation as per Appendix I at the higher rates. The Tribunal, inter alia

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

The appeals are dismissed

Bench: SATISH CHANDRA SHARMA,SURAJ GOVINDARAJ

disallowed under Section 43- B which, as stated above, was inserted with effect from 1st April, 1984. It is also relevant to note that the first proviso which came into force with effect from 1st April, 1988 was not on the statute book when the assessments were made in the case of Allied Motors (P) Limited (supra). However, the Assessee