SKF TECHNOLOGIES (INDIA) P. LTD., vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX

The Appeal is disposed of

Bench: S.SUJATHA,VINEET KOTHARI

Section 40[a][ia] of the Act could not be made simultaneously on same account. 6. On both the issues, learned Tribunal has remanded the case back to the Assessing Officer for further enquiry into the relevant facts in view of the guidelines given by the learned Tribunal. The relevant portion of the order of the learned Tribunal in this

THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX vs. M/S QUEST GLOBAL ENGINEERING SERVICES PVT. LTD.,

In the result, we don to find any

Bench: ALOK ARADHE,R. NATARAJ

96,860/- and deduction of Rs.75,000/- was claimed under Chapter VI-A of the Act. The return was processed under Section 143(1) of the Act and was subsequently taken up for scrutiny. The Assessing Officer by an order dated 22.2.2013, inter alia, made the addition on account of disallowance

THE PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER vs. M/S SRI. PRABHULINGESHWAR SUGARS

In the result, the appeals stand dismissed

Bench: S.SUJATHA,H.B.PRABHAKARA SASTRY

disallowance of Rs.5,76,96,920/- made under Section 40(a)(ia) R/w Section 194C of the Income Tax Act, 1961 and in view

M/S. B FOURESS (P) LIMITED vs. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER

In the result, the order dated

Bench: ALOK ARADHE,R. NATARAJ

Section 143(3) of the Act on 14.12.2011 by the Assessing Officer after disallowing commission of Rs.2,93,08,446/- and total income of the assessee was assessed at Rs.21,37,96

THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX vs. M/S ASEA BROWN BOVERI LTD

Bench: ALOK ARADHE,M.NAGAPRASANNA

disallowance of claim under Section 40(A)(3) of the Act was also upheld. The finding with regard to allowing deduction under Section 80HHC of the Act was upheld. In the result, the appeal was dismissed. 9 4. The assessee filed an appeal before the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal. The tribunal by an order dated 25.05.2012 inter alia held that

THE PR COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX vs. M/S VSL MINING COMPANY PVT LTD

Appeal is dismissed as being

Bench: S.G.PANDIT,C.M. POONACHA

96,22,255/-. A notice under Section 143(2) as also Section 142(1) of the IT Act was issued, consequent to which vide Assessment Order4 dated 31.12.2009 the Assessing Officer4 assessed the taxable income as `115,89,54,044/- and the balance tax payable at `44,31,32,567/-. 3. It is further forthcoming that a survey under Section

COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-III vs. M/S. ONMOBILE GLOBAL LTD

In the result, the matter is remitted to the Tribunal to

Bench: ALOK ARADHE,R. NATARAJ

96,36,736/- and claimed a refund of Rs.9,63,42,390/-. The aforesaid return was processed by the Assessing Officer under Section 143(1) of the Act and subsequently, regular assessment was taken up. Thereafter, on 30.12.2010, an order of assessment 5 under Section 143(3) of the Act was passed by the Assessing Authority, by which the assessing

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

The appeals are dismissed

Bench: ARAVIND KUMAR,N.KUMAR

96,310/- was levied in terms of Section 271(1)(c) of Income Tax Act, 1961. 6. Aggrieved by the said order of levy of penalty, both the assessees filed appeals before C.I.T (Appeals), Gulbarga, in ITA No.64-65/03-04/BLY. The Appellate Authority by separate orders dated 18.02.2004 confirmed the levy of penalty and dismissed the appeals filed by the assessees. Being

THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX vs. THE SANDUR MANGANESE and IRON ORES LTD

Bench: N.KUMAR,H.S.KEMPANNA

96,267/-. 3. The Assessing Authority disallowed the said disallowances and brought the said amounts to tax. Aggrieved by the said order the assessee preferred an appeal to the Commissioner of Income Tax Appeals, who : 3 : has affirmed the said order. But he observed that, on due application of mind he finds that in respect of grounds of appeal dealt

THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX vs. ING VYSYA BANK LTD

In the result, this appeal is allowed in part,

Bench: B.MANOHAR,D.V.SHYLENDRA KUMAR

96,71,030/- and the balance claim of Rs.5,24,74,740/- had been correctly disallowed as the requirement of Section

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

In the result the substantial questions of law are

Bench: ALOK ARADHE,R. NATARAJ

Section 143(3)of the Act by the Assessing Officer by order dated 14.06.2005 and disallowances to the tune of Rs.17,96

STATE BANK OF INDIA vs. THE JOINT COMMISSIONER

In the result, the appeal is disposed of

Bench: ALOK ARADHE,HEMANT CHANDANGOUDAR

disallowing the deduction claimed in respect of transitional liability although such expenditure is incurred wholly and exclusively for the purpose of the business of the Appellant and hence should be an admissible expenditure under section 37(1) of the Act? 2. Facts leading to filing of this appeal briefly stated are that the appellant filed its return of income

THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX vs. M/S. ASTRA ZENECA PHARMA

In the result, the order passed by the

Bench: ALOK ARADHE,HEMANT CHANDANGOUDAR

96,82,930/-. The return was processed under Section 143(1A) of the Act and was rectified under Section 154 of the Act on 27.10.1998. The case was selected for scrutiny. Thereupon notices were issued under Section 143(2) and 143(1) to the assessee. The assessing officer by an order dated 26.03.1999 passed an order of assessment and inter

THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX vs. M/S CANARA BANK

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

Bench: ALOK ARADHE,H.T. NARENDRA PRASAD

96,99,47,660/- respectively was declared. In the assessments made under Section 143(3) of the Act the Assessing Officer disallowed

PR COMMISSIONER OF vs. M/S JEANS KNIT PVT LTD

In the result, we do not find any

Bench: ALOK ARADHE,H.T. NARENDRA PRASAD

disallowed the assessee's claim for deduction under Section 10B of the Act. 5. The Assessing Officer inter alia held that assessee is entitled to deduction under Section 10B of the Act only after verification and the contention of the assessee that old machinery from FFIPL was transferred to it only in April 2007 does not deserve acceptance

PR.COMMISSIONER OF vs. M/S JEANS KNIT PVT.LTD

In the result, we do not find any

Bench: ALOK ARADHE,H.T. NARENDRA PRASAD

disallowed the assessee's claim for deduction under Section 10B of the Act. 5. The Assessing Officer inter alia held that assessee is entitled to deduction under Section 10B of the Act only after verification and the contention of the assessee that old machinery from FFIPL was transferred to it only in April 2007 does not deserve acceptance

PR COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-4 vs. M/S JEANS KNIT PVT LTD

In the result, we do not find any

Bench: ALOK ARADHE,H.T. NARENDRA PRASAD

disallowed the assessee's claim for deduction under Section 10B of the Act. 5. The Assessing Officer inter alia held that assessee is entitled to deduction under Section 10B of the Act only after verification and the contention of the assessee that old machinery from FFIPL was transferred to it only in April 2007 does not deserve acceptance

COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-III vs. M/S SHRIRAM CHITS (KAR) PVT LTD

In the result, the appeal is disposed of

Bench: ALOK ARADHE,H.T. NARENDRA PRASAD

96,35,074/-. The return was processed under Section 143(1) of the Act and was subsequently taken up for scrutiny and notices under Section 143(2) and 142(1) were issued to the assessee. The Assessing Officer by an order dated 24.12.2007 5 inter alia disallowed