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

Bench: S.SUJATHA,VINEET KOTHARI

Section 68 of the Act appears to have been done without affording a specific opportunity Date of Judgment :23-07-2018 I.T.A.No.512/2017 M/s. Fidelity Business Services India Pvt. Ltd., Vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income

M/S. KARNATAKA INSTRADE CORPORATION LIMITED vs. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX

The appeal is allowed in part

Bench: B.MANOHAR,VINEET SARAN

68,126/- towards income from other sources, out of which, Rs.66,482/- is the rental income. Though the Tribunal held the said income as “income from business”, however, refused to grant set-off of brought forward unabsorbed depreciation from the heads of Profit and Gain from business, which contrary to law. In view of deeming fiction under Section

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

business premises with the person searched. But the fact that it ipso facto could not face proceedings under Section 153C of the Act, unless there was undisclosed income on the part of the assessee detected in the search operation, was not correct. Also, it was not necessary that satisfaction should be recorded regarding the seized - 41 - articles found

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

business premises with the person searched. But the fact that it ipso facto could not face proceedings under Section 153C of the Act, unless there was undisclosed income on the part of the assessee detected in the search operation, was not correct. Also, it was not necessary that satisfaction should be recorded regarding the seized - 41 - articles found

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

business premises with the person searched. But the fact that it ipso facto could not face proceedings under Section 153C of the Act, unless there was undisclosed income on the part of the assessee detected in the search operation, was not correct. Also, it was not necessary that satisfaction should be recorded regarding the seized - 41 - articles found

THE PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CIT(A) vs. SHRI.S.S. BAKKESH

In the result, both the appeals filed by the Revenue are

Bench: D K SINGH,VENKATESH NAIK T

business of manufacturing of bio- fertilizers and bio-fuel pellets in respect of which, the assessee has claimed a deduction under Section 80 JJA of the Act. The return of income, for the Assessment years 2008-2009 and 2007-08 was processed under Section 143(1) of the Act. The scrutiny assessment was completed by the Assessing Officer under Section

THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX vs. SRI N LEELA KUMAR

Bench: N.KUMAR,RATHNAKALA

business in wholesale - 4 - trade in liquor. The first search was conducted on 13.03.2000. A Block Assessment order for Block period from 01.04.1990 to 31.03.2000 was passed on 27.03.2002. The Assessing Officer had computed a sum of Rs.28,83,258/- as undisclosed income in the case of M/s. Raghavendra Traders and Rs.27,25,596/- in the case of Sri.N.Leela Kumar

M/S T T K PRESTIGE LTD vs. THE UNION OF INDIA REPTD BY ITS FINANCE SECRETARY

Bench: The Hon’Ble Mr.Justice P.B. Bajanthri W.P. No.26037/2005 C/W W.P.No.4464/2007 & W.P.No.27087/2005(It)

income from salary this generic meaning of perquisite is adopted by legislature. The word "perquisite" in juridical expression has also received the connotation which 66 gives expression "salary a broad spectrum coverage. Meriam Webster's Dictionary of Law describes fringe benefits as 'an employment benefit (as a pension, a paid holiday, or health insurance) granted by an employer that

PR. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX vs. M/S CHAMUNDI WINERY AND DISTILLERY

Bench: S.SUJATHA,VINEET KOTHARI

income and which amounts after they reach the club are applied by the club for benevolent purposes by allowing the benevolent fund to have the benefit of all those amounts. The licence fees, penalties and fines at the time the payments were made by those, who are required to make those payments were, at the time the payments, not regarded

THE PR. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (4) vs. M/S CHAMUNDI WINERY AND DISTILLERY

Bench: S.SUJATHA,VINEET KOTHARI

income and which amounts after they reach the club are applied by the club for benevolent purposes by allowing the benevolent fund to have the benefit of all those amounts. The licence fees, penalties and fines at the time the payments were made by those, who are required to make those payments were, at the time the payments, not regarded

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

The appeals are dismissed

Bench: ARAVIND KUMAR,N.KUMAR

business of dealing in import of ceramic tiles. Return of income for the assessment year 2003-04 was filed on 28.11.2003 declaring a total income of Rs.3,62,590/-. For the assessment year 2004-05 the return was filed on 29.10.2004 declaring the total income of Rs.4,78,649/-. The returns were processed under Section

COMMISSIONER OF INCOME vs. SRI KARNATAKA FRANSALIAN SOCIETY

Bench: S.SUJATHA,VINEET KOTHARI

68,002/- resulting out of excess application over income without appreciating that the provisions of sections 70 to 80 of IT Act are not applicable to trusts as they only deal with carry forward and set off of loss and not excess expenditure or deficit under section 11(1)(a) of the Act? 3. The learned counsel for Revenue submits

M/S TEACHERS CO OPERATIVE BANK vs. UNION OF INDIA

Bench: The Hon’Ble Mr.Justice Aravind Kumar

Section 200A, which provision is in para materia with Section 143(1). While processing the return of income under Section 143(1)(a) no personal hearing is provided to an assessee and as such the same is also not provided under Section 200A. Thus, the doctrine of principles of natural justice is given a go by under impugned provision

DR V. NARAYANASWAMY vs. UNION OF INDIA

Bench: The Hon’Ble Mr.Justice Aravind Kumar

Section 200A, which provision is in para materia with Section 143(1). While processing the return of income under Section 143(1)(a) no personal hearing is provided to an assessee and as such the same is also not provided under Section 200A. Thus, the doctrine of principles of natural justice is given a go by under impugned provision

M/S PROCESS PUMPS (I) PVT LTD vs. UNION OF INDIA

Bench: The Hon’Ble Mr.Justice Aravind Kumar

Section 200A, which provision is in para materia with Section 143(1). While processing the return of income under Section 143(1)(a) no personal hearing is provided to an assessee and as such the same is also not provided under Section 200A. Thus, the doctrine of principles of natural justice is given a go by under impugned provision

M/S HOTEL FISHLAND vs. UNION OF INDIA

Bench: The Hon’Ble Mr.Justice Aravind Kumar

Section 200A, which provision is in para materia with Section 143(1). While processing the return of income under Section 143(1)(a) no personal hearing is provided to an assessee and as such the same is also not provided under Section 200A. Thus, the doctrine of principles of natural justice is given a go by under impugned provision

SYNDICATE BANK vs. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX

Bench: The Hon’Ble Mr.Justice Aravind Kumar

Section 200A, which provision is in para materia with Section 143(1). While processing the return of income under Section 143(1)(a) no personal hearing is provided to an assessee and as such the same is also not provided under Section 200A. Thus, the doctrine of principles of natural justice is given a go by under impugned provision

M/S. LAKSHMINIRMAN BANGALORE PVT.LTD vs. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX

Bench: The Hon’Ble Mr.Justice Aravind Kumar

Section 200A, which provision is in para materia with Section 143(1). While processing the return of income under Section 143(1)(a) no personal hearing is provided to an assessee and as such the same is also not provided under Section 200A. Thus, the doctrine of principles of natural justice is given a go by under impugned provision