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

The appeals stand disposed of, accordingly

Bench: N.KUMAR,B.SREENIVASE GOWDA

9 - AND : The Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax Central Circle 1(3), 3rd Floor Central Revenue Buildings Queens Road, Bangalore 560 001. …RESPONDENT (By Sri E.R.Indrakumar, Senior Counsel for Sri K.V.Aravind, Adv.) This I.T.A. is filed under Section 260-A of I.T.Act, 1961 arising out of order dated 31.10.2008 passed in ITA No.817/BANG/2007, for the assessment year 2003-2004, praying

THE PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER vs. M/S OBULAPURAM MINING

Bench: K.SOMASHEKAR,UMESH M ADIGA

9 and 10, the learned AR of the assessee submitted that three issues are involved in this ground i.e. 1) Disallowance of Transportation charges, 2) Disallowance of Expenses under Explanation to section

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

Bench: K.SOMASHEKAR,UMESH M ADIGA

1(3), Bangalore dated 31.03.2013, further an appeal was preferred before the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) – VI wherein the appellate order and ground of decision was passed. The assessments under Section 153C read with Section 144 of the IT Act for assessment years 2005-06 to 2010-11 and under Section 153D read with Section 144 for the assessment

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

Bench: K.SOMASHEKAR,UMESH M ADIGA

1(3), Bangalore dated 31.03.2013 an appeal was preferred before the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) – VI wherein the appellate order and ground of decision was passed. The assessments under Section 153C read with Section 144 of the IT Act for assessment years 2005-06 to 2010-11 and under Section 154D read with Section 144 for the assessment year

PR. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-5 vs. M/S. PUMA SPORTS INDIA P., LTD.,

The appeal stands dismissed

Bench: SATISH CHANDRA SHARMA,V SRISHANANDA

disallowance made under Section 40(a)(1) of the Act for the sum of Rs.7,29,13,934/- by holding that the income of the non-residents by way of commission cannot be considered as accrued or arisen or deemed to accrue or arise in India as the services of such 4 agents were rendered or utilized outside India

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

In the result, the appeals are partly allowed

Bench: B.MANOHAR,DILIP B.BHOSALE

Section 139 of the Income Tax Act (for short ‘IT Act) for the assessment years 1986-87, 1987-88 and 9 1992-93, from which these appeals arise. We would like to deal with every appeal independently one after another. ITA No.133/2007 9. First, we would consider ITA 133/07 which is arising from the returns filed by the respondent-assessee

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

The appeals are disposed of

Bench: ALOK ARADHE,RAVI V HOSMANI

disallowing an amount of Rs.192,53,21,426/- on reversal of interest pertaining to earlier years as deduction out of current years income and added back to interest on zero coupon bonds to the tune of RS.1,03,53,095/- along with other additions/disallowance in computation of regular income/book profit. It was held that as per section 36(1)(viia

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

Appeal is allowed

Bench: S.SUJATHA,N.K.PATIL

disallowed the deduction towards the capital expenditure. In such circumstances, levying of penalty under Section 271(1)(c) of the Act is mandatory and authorities have no discretionary power to waive off the penalty, even if there is any technical error in issuing the notice, it cannot be turned down only on the technicalities. What could be inferred from

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

disallowance of interest under Section 36(1)(iii) of the Act. Similarly twin issues arise for consideration in this appeal viz., whether loan processing and other charges can be allowed as revenue expenditure or has to be treated as capital in nature and whether the tribunal has acted in contravention of the provision of Section

COFFEEDAY GLOBAL LTD. vs. ADDITIONAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX

In the result, the orders dated 21

Bench: ALOK ARADHE,ASHOK S.KINAGI

disallowance of interest under Section 36(1)(iii) of the Act. Similarly twin issues arise for consideration in this appeal viz., whether loan processing and other charges can be allowed as revenue expenditure or has to be treated as capital in nature and whether the tribunal has acted in contravention of the provision of Section

COFFEEDAY GLOBAL LTD. vs. ADDITIONAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX

In the result, the orders dated 21

Bench: ALOK ARADHE,ASHOK S.KINAGI

disallowance of interest under Section 36(1)(iii) of the Act. Similarly twin issues arise for consideration in this appeal viz., whether loan processing and other charges can be allowed as revenue expenditure or has to be treated as capital in nature and whether the tribunal has acted in contravention of the provision of Section

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

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

The appeal stands dismissed

Bench: S.SUJATHA,J.M.KHAZI

1), the authority shall pass an order, within a period of six months from the end of the month in which the application is received by it,- (a) making the amendment; or (b) refusing to allow the claim.” 8. Section 115JB of the Act is a complete code in itself. The controversy relating to disallowance under Section

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

disallow such claim made by the assessee though duly certified by the prescribed authority by taking recourse to the later portion of sub-clause (ii) of sub-section (4) of Section 43 of the Act. He would summarise his 9 submissions by contending the definition of ‘scientific research’ found in Section 43(4) has been imported to Section

THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX vs. M/S LUWA INDIA PVT LTD

Bench: RAVI MALIMATH,N.KUMAR

1) of section 9; By Finance Act, 2010, the said provision is substituted by the following: Substituted by the Finance Act, 2010, w.e.f. 01.04.2010. Prior to its substitution, proviso as substituted by the Finance Act, 2008, w.r.e.f. 01.04.2005, read as under: 12 “Provided that where in respect of any such sum, tax has been deducted in any subsequent year

M/S PADMINI PRODUCTS (P) LTD., vs. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX

In the result, the aforesaid

Bench: ALOK ARADHE,H.T. NARENDRA PRASAD

disallowed. 3. Being aggrieved, the assessee filed an appeal before the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) who by an order dated 20.02.2013 dismissed the appeal. The 7 assessee thereupon approached the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (hereinafter referred to as 'the Tribunal' for short) by filing an appeal. The Tribunal by an order dated 10.01.2013 inter alia held that transaction itself

THE PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER vs. M/S OBULAPURAM MINING

Bench: K.SOMASHEKAR,UMESH M ADIGA

disallowed 40% of 7 the expenses attributable to 40% of the illegal production. Whereas, the tribunal has made an observation with respect to the applicability of Section 37(1) are incorrect and perverse. 6.Further, the learned counsel for the appellants/revenue referring the order passed by the ITAT contended that the respondent/ assessee’s reply is considered carefully