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

Bench: CHIEF JUSTICE,C M JOSHI

disallowance of 10% of dividend income under Section 14A of the Act. 5. The Assessee is engaged in the business of providing back office support and data processing services to its customers. The Assessee had filed its return of income [ROI] for the AY 2015-16 and AY 2016-17 on 30.11.2015 and 14.10.2016 respectively. The Assessee had declared

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 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

7 section 40(a)(ia) of the Act are satisfied in case of assessee? 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

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

7 section 40(a)(ia) of the Act are satisfied in case of assessee? 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

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

7 section 40(a)(ia) of the Act are satisfied in case of assessee? 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

THE DIRECTOR OF INCOME TAX vs. INDIA HERITAGE FOUNDATION

The appeal is disposed of

Bench: ALOK ARADHE,H.T. NARENDRA PRASAD

7. Thus, from close scrutiny of Section 263 it is evident that twin conditions are required to be satisfied for exercise of revisional jurisdiction under Section 263 of the Act firstly, the order of the Assessing Officer is erroneous and secondly, that it is prejudicial to the interest of the revenue on account of error in the order of assessment

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

disallowing the amount in question under Section 40(a)(ia) of the Act. Accordingly, the appeal preferred by the assessee was allowed. In the aforesaid factual background, the revenue has filed this appeal. 5. Learned counsel for the revenue submitted that the Assessing Authority as well as the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) have categorically held that the assessee

THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX vs. M/S AMCO POWER SYSTEMS LTD.,

Bench: B.MANOHAR,VINEET SARAN

7. Being aggrieved by the order of the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), the assessee as well as Revenue, both filed appeals before the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Bangalore, Bench-B. (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Tribunal’ for short). The assessee challenged disallowance of the benefit claimed regarding set-off of brought forward losses, whereas the Revenue filed an appeal

THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX vs. M/S AMCO POWER SYSTEMS LTD

Bench: B.MANOHAR,VINEET SARAN

7. Being aggrieved by the order of the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), the assessee as well as Revenue, both filed appeals before the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Bangalore, Bench-B. (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Tribunal’ for short). The assessee challenged disallowance of the benefit claimed regarding set-off of brought forward losses, whereas the Revenue filed an appeal

THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX vs. M/S AMCO POWER SYSTEMS LTD.,

Bench: B.MANOHAR,VINEET SARAN

7. Being aggrieved by the order of the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), the assessee as well as Revenue, both filed appeals before the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Bangalore, Bench-B. (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Tribunal’ for short). The assessee challenged disallowance of the benefit claimed regarding set-off of brought forward losses, whereas the Revenue filed an appeal

THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX vs. M/S AMCO POWER SYSTEMS LTD.,

Bench: B.MANOHAR,VINEET SARAN

7. Being aggrieved by the order of the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), the assessee as well as Revenue, both filed appeals before the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Bangalore, Bench-B. (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Tribunal’ for short). The assessee challenged disallowance of the benefit claimed regarding set-off of brought forward losses, whereas the Revenue filed an appeal

PR COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX vs. M/S ENNOBLE CONSTRUCTION

Bench: KRISHNA S.DIXIT,P.KRISHNA BHAT

disallowance; the fact that for the Assessment Year 2008 – 09 some addition was made under the said head, cannot be the sole basis for making such an addition for the subsequent Assessment Year, each assessment being an independent compact. He also pleaded about CBI raid & seizure of all documents, not even a piece of paper being in his custody

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

Bench: ARAVIND KUMAR,MOHAN M. SHANTANAGOUDAR

7 scrutiny has proceeded to frame the assessment order under 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

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

Bench: ARAVIND KUMAR,MOHAN M. SHANTANAGOUDAR

7 scrutiny has proceeded to frame the assessment order under 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

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

7. We have considered the rival submissions made on both sides and have perused the record. The Supreme Court in KALYANJI MAVJI & CO. supra held as under: "13. On a combined review of the decisions of this Court the following tests and principles would apply to determine the applicability of Section 34(1)(b) to the following categories of cases

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

94,570/- after claiming deduction under Section 10B of the Act to the tune of Rs.8,79,18,006/-. The return was selected for scrutiny. The Assessing Officer by orders dated 23.12.2011 and 27.02.2013 passed under Section 143(3) of the Act for Assessment Years 2009-10 and 2010-11 respectively completed the assessment and disallowed the portion

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

Bench: P.S.DINESH KUMAR,G BASAVARAJA

disallowed some exemptions. The Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)5 has confirmed AO's order and ITAT has set aside the AO’s order and allowed the appeal. 5. Shri.Sanmathi assailing ITAT's order submitted that pursuant to first notice dated 18.04.2013 issued under Section 148 of the Act, the last date to complete the assessment was 31.12.2014. No action

THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, vs. M/S WIPRO GE MEDICAL SYSTEMS LTD

Appeals stand disposed of accordingly

Bench: JAYANT PATEL,B.SREENIVASE GOWDA

Section 145 of the Act. Re-Question No.2 7. The learned counsel Mr. K. V. Aravind appearing for the Revenue reiterated the grounds urged before the ITAT and sought for remanding the matter back to the Assessing Officer to examine the issue in the light of the Judgment of the Apex Court in Rotork Controls Case (supra). 27 8. Learned