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

The appeals stand disposed of, accordingly

Bench: N.KUMAR,B.SREENIVASE GOWDA

94,67,448/- at the fag end of the assessment proceedings which was erroneously not claimed earlier. Therefore, the assessee raised a claim for tax credit for the tax paid in foreign countries. The assessing authority relying on Section 139(5) of the Act held that the claim is not admissible at this juncture. Section

GMR INFRASTRUCTURE LIMITED vs. THE DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX

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

Bench: ALOK ARADHE,HEMANT CHANDANGOUDAR

4 17.02.2014. The appellant filed a letter requesting to treat the original return of income filed on 31.10.2017 under Section 139(1) of the Act as returned income in response to notice under Section 153A of the Act. Thereafter, notices under Sections 143(2) and 142(1) was issued to the assessee on 01.07.2014. Another notice under Section

KARNATAKA STATE BEVERAGES CORPORTION LIMITED vs. THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX

Bench: The Hon’Ble Mr. Justice Anand Byrareddy Writ Petition No.12872 Of 2013 (T-It) Connected With Writ Petition No.14687 Of 2014 (T-It), Writ Petition No.15910 Of 2015 (T-It) & Writ Petition No.17514 Of 2015 (T-It) In W.P.No.12872 Of 2013 Between: Karnataka State Beverages Corporation Limited, Represented By It’S Executive Director (Finance), Sri. Shrikant B Vanahalli, Aged About 57 Years, No.78, Seethalakshmi Towers, Mission Road, Bangalore 560 027. …Petitioner

94 Taxman 271/228 ITR 463(SC). d) State of Kerala and others vs. Kurian Abraham Private Limited and another, [2008] 303 ITR 284 (SC). Hence, the attempt to disallow the privilege fee in respect of the assessment years prior to 2014-15, is clearly without reference to any legal provision. The opinion expressed by the Assessing Officer is that

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

Bench: S.SUJATHA,VINEET KOTHARI

94,300/- on 29/03/1962 and thus the Assessee incurred a loss of `23,100/- for the said year, the learned Tribunal held that though the said loss in sale and purchase of the shares could not be termed as ‘speculative transactions’ and the lower Authorities were not justified in treating the said loss as ‘speculative loss’ but however, the Tribunal

M/S KHODAY INDIA LTD vs. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX

In the result, the orders passed by the Assessing

Bench: ALOK ARADHE,HEMANT CHANDANGOUDAR

94,29,682/-. The return was selected for scrutiny. The Assessing Officer passed an order under Section 143(3) of the Act and additions were made on account of 50% of sales promotion expenses, disallowance under Section 14A read with Rule 8D of the Rules, disallowance of interest on advance for capital goods and ESI contributions under Section

PR COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-7 vs. M/S TALLY SOLUTIONS PVT LTD

In the result, the appeals fail and are hereby

Bench: ALOK ARADHE,H.T. NARENDRA PRASAD

4. Facts leading to filing of these appeals briefly stated are that assessee is engaged in business of software development and sale of software product licence, software maintenance and training in software. For the sake of brevity, facts from I.T.A.No.199/2017 are being referred to. The assessee filed the return of income for the Assessment Year 2009-10 after claiming

PR. COMMISSIONER OF vs. M/S TALLY SOLUTIONS PVT LTD.,

In the result, the appeals fail and are hereby

Bench: ALOK ARADHE,H.T. NARENDRA PRASAD

4. Facts leading to filing of these appeals briefly stated are that assessee is engaged in business of software development and sale of software product licence, software maintenance and training in software. For the sake of brevity, facts from I.T.A.No.199/2017 are being referred to. The assessee filed the return of income for the Assessment Year 2009-10 after claiming

PR COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-7 vs. M/S TALLY SOLUTIONS PVT LTD

In the result, the appeals fail and are hereby

Bench: ALOK ARADHE,H.T. NARENDRA PRASAD

4. Facts leading to filing of these appeals briefly stated are that assessee is engaged in business of software development and sale of software product licence, software maintenance and training in software. For the sake of brevity, facts from I.T.A.No.199/2017 are being referred to. The assessee filed the return of income for the Assessment Year 2009-10 after claiming

PR COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-6 vs. M/S SUBEX TECHNOLOGIES LTD

In the result, the appeal is disposed of

Bench: ALOK ARADHE,H.T. NARENDRA PRASAD

4. The Assessing Officer on perusal of the statement of accounts, noticed that assessee has debited a sum of Rs.62,49,85,438/- as sub contract charges under the head of 'personnel cost' as per profit and loss account. Thereupon the show cause notice was issued as to why the aforesaid payment should not be disallowed under Section

COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX vs. SHRI D M PURNESH

Bench: ALOK ARADHE,RAVI V HOSMANI

Section 260-A of the Income Tax Act has been filed by the revenue, which was admitted by a Bench of this Court on the following substantial questions of law: i) Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal is right in law in setting aside the disallowance of Rs.39,86,424 when assessing authority

THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX GULBARGA vs. M/S MANJUNATHA COTTON AND GINNING FACTORY

The appeals are dismissed

Bench: ARAVIND KUMAR,N.KUMAR

4 held as under: “…..It is sufficient for us to refer to section 271(1)(a), which provides that a penalty may be imposed if the Income-tax Officer is satisfied that any person has without reasonable cause failed to furnish the return of total income, and to section 276C which provides that if a person wilfully fails to furnish

M/S SUTURES INDIA (P) LTD vs. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX

In the result, the common order passed by the

Bench: ALOK ARADHE,HEMANT CHANDANGOUDAR

4 declaring total income of Rs.9,48,36,690/- after claiming deduction under Section 10B of the Act to the extent of Rs.9,48,24,379/-. The assessee for the Assessment Year 2010-11 declared total income of Rs.13,55,94,570/- after claiming deduction under Section 10B of the Act to the tune of Rs.8

THE DIRECTOR OF INCOME TAX vs. INDIA HERITAGE FOUNDATION

The appeal is disposed of

Bench: ALOK ARADHE,H.T. NARENDRA PRASAD

4. Learned counsel for the revenue submitted that the Tribunal itself in paragraph 21 of the order had recorded the finding that invocation of Section 263 of the Act in the facts of the case is justified. It was argued that the Tribunal therefore, grossly erred in setting aside the order under Section 263 of the Act. It was further

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

In the result, the appeals are partly allowed

Bench: B.MANOHAR,DILIP B.BHOSALE

4. In ITA 68/07, the following four substantial questions of law are raised for our consideration: A-5. Whether the Tribunal was correct in holding that a sum of Rs.8,156/- spent on modification of building, a sum of Rs.3,60,694/- spent on corporate office repairs and Rs.21,485/-spent on purchase of paintings is a revenue expenditure

PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX vs. MESSERS THE ARCHDIOCESAN BOARD OF

Bench: P.S.DINESH KUMAR,G BASAVARAJA

4. Second notice was issued under Section 148 of the Act on 31.03.2015. The assessee contested the said notice and assessment order has been passed under Section 143 r/w Section 147 of the Act, wherein the AO has disallowed some exemptions. The Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)5 has confirmed AO's order and ITAT has set aside

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

disallowing the deduction claimed by the assessee towards sales commission to the tune of Rs.16,93,91,847/- and added the same to the total income of the assessee. 4. The assessee thereupon preferred an appeal before the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) who by an order dated 01.08.2014 dismissed the appeal preferred by the assessee and upheld the order

THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX vs. M/S HMA DATA SYSTEMS P LTD.,

Bench: ARAVIND KUMAR,MOHAN M. SHANTANAGOUDAR

Section 143(3) by order dated 22.12.2006, whereunder disallowances to the tune of `2,67,85,610/- was made. During the previous year relevant to the assessment year, assessee sold 50,000 shares of M/s.Diebold HMA Pvt. Ltd., said to have been acquired by it during the year 1992-93 for a total consideration

M/S HMA DATA SYSTEM P LTD., vs. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX

Bench: ARAVIND KUMAR,MOHAN M. SHANTANAGOUDAR

Section 143(3) by order dated 22.12.2006, whereunder disallowances to the tune of `2,67,85,610/- was made. During the previous year relevant to the assessment year, assessee sold 50,000 shares of M/s.Diebold HMA Pvt. Ltd., said to have been acquired by it during the year 1992-93 for a total consideration