M/S WIPRO LIMITED vs. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX

The appeals stand disposed of, accordingly

Bench: N.KUMAR,B.SREENIVASE GOWDA

68 - 52. Section 10A (1) speaks of “deduction”. The deduction is of profits and gains for a period of ten consecutive assessment years. The said deduction is from the total income of the assessee. Therefore, the total income before allowing the said deduction includes the profits and gains from the business referred to in Section 10A(1). Section

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

The appeals stand disposed of, accordingly

Bench: N.KUMAR,B.SREENIVASE GOWDA

68 - 52. Section 10A (1) speaks of “deduction”. The deduction is of profits and gains for a period of ten consecutive assessment years. The said deduction is from the total income of the assessee. Therefore, the total income before allowing the said deduction includes the profits and gains from the business referred to in Section 10A(1). Section

THE DIRECTOR OF INCOME TAX vs. INDIA HERITAGE FOUNDATION

The appeal is disposed of

Bench: ALOK ARADHE,H.T. NARENDRA PRASAD

10 INCOME-TAX’, (2000) 243 ITR 83W (SC) and ‘COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX VS. HERO AUTO LTD.’, (2012) 343 ITR 342 (DEL). 6. We have considered the submissions made by learned counsel on both the sides and have perused the record. Before proceeding further, it is apposite to take note of the relevant extract of Section

R JANARDHANA BABU vs. THE MANAGING DIRECTOR

Accordingly, the writ petitions are allowed

Bench: The Hon’Ble Mr. Justice B. Veerappa

10, G No.8 Street, Jougupalayam, Ulsoor, Bangalore-560008. 67. Ramakrishnappa, s/o Lakshmaiah, aged about 59 years, Glaxosmithkline Pharmaceuticals Limited, Devanahalli Road, Off Old Madras Road, Bangalore-560049 68. T Krishna, s/o V Thimmaiah, aged about 59 years, Glaxosmithkline Pharmaceuticals Limited, Devanahalli Road, Off Old Madras Road, Bangalore-560049 69. U S Nanjappa, s/o Siddalingappa, aged about 59 years

REKHA KRISHNARAJ vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER

The appeal is dismissed accordingly

Bench: B.MANOHAR,N.KUMAR

10 ordinary meaning of the words. The tittle of a chapter be legitimately used to restrict the plain terms of an enactment. The headings prefixed to sections or entries cannot control the plain words of the provision; they cannot also be referred to for the purpose of construing the provision when the words used in the provision

SMT.K.SOWBAGHYA vs. UNION OF INDIA

Bench: ANAND BYRAREDDY

68 secreted or dealt with otherwise, thereby frustrating the attachment proceedings, power is afforded to take action. It is noticed that such attachment by recourse to the second proviso to Section 5 (1) is for a limited period, as is clear from a reading of sub-section (3) thereto, which contemplates that attachments affected under sub-section

SMT.K. SOWBAGHYA vs. UNION OF INDIA

Bench: ANAND BYRAREDDY

68 secreted or dealt with otherwise, thereby frustrating the attachment proceedings, power is afforded to take action. It is noticed that such attachment by recourse to the second proviso to Section 5 (1) is for a limited period, as is clear from a reading of sub-section (3) thereto, which contemplates that attachments affected under sub-section

THE OFFICIAL LIQUIDATOR OF vs. REGISTRAR OF TRADE MARKS

Bench: The Hon'Ble Mr.Justice S.R.Krishna Kumar

10. Commissioner Of Income Tax, W.B. III Vs. M/s ChunilalPrabhudas& Co, 1969 SCC Online Cal 85 11. Star Industrial Company Limited Vs. Yap KweeKor (Trading As New Star Industrial Company), 1976 FSPLR 256 12. Norman Kark Publications Ltd. Vs. Odhams Press Ltd.; [1962] 1 W.L.R. 380 13. Uncas Manufacturing Company Vs. Clark & Coombs Company, 200 F.Supp 831 14. Sutton

M/S GARDEN CITY EDUCATION vs. THE DEPUTY DIRECTOR

In the result, the following:

Bench: P.S.DINESH KUMAR,UMESH M ADIGA

10,843/- for A.Y. 1995-96 as unexplained Cash credit under Section 68 of the IT Act. 16. Thus

MASTER BALACHANDAR KRISHNAN vs. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA

Bench: B.V.NAGARATHNA,RAVI V HOSMANI

Section 8 of the Act provides for the authorities of the School which are five in number. Section 18 of the Act which deals with authorities and Officers of the School etc., states that the authorities of the School and their composition, powers, functions and other matters relating to them, the officers of the School and their appointment

AJITH U SHENOY vs. THE REGIONAL TRANSPORT AUTHORITY

Bench: The Hon’Ble Mrs.Justice S.Sujatha

68[3][ca] of the Act, the Regional Transport Authority and State Transport Authority has no jurisdiction to entertain the applications and applicants moving the applications for - 19 - permit of stage carriages not specified in the routes are to be rejected not being in conformity with Section 72 and the proviso thereof. It was further submitted that this order

THE HANUMAN TRANSPORT CO PVT LTD vs. THE REGIONAL TRANSPORT AUTHORITY

Bench: The Hon’Ble Mrs.Justice S.Sujatha

68[3][ca] of the Act, the Regional Transport Authority and State Transport Authority has no jurisdiction to entertain the applications and applicants moving the applications for - 19 - permit of stage carriages not specified in the routes are to be rejected not being in conformity with Section 72 and the proviso thereof. It was further submitted that this order

M/S. MANDAVI BUILDERS, vs. DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX

In the result, the appeal is disposed of

Bench: ALOK ARADHE,H.T. NARENDRA PRASAD

Section 80IB(10) of the Act to the tune of 4 Rs.12,26,80,417/- and Rs.6,49,29,278/- for Assessment Years 2010-11 and 2011-12 respectively. The Assessing Officer by an order dated 28.12.2012 determined the total income of the assessee for the Assessment Years 2010-11 and 2011-12 at Rs.12,68

M/S MYSORE POLYMERS & RUBBER PRODUCTS LTD vs. THE COMMISSIONER OF COMMERCIAL TAXES

In the result, writ appeal No

Bench: D.V.SHYLENDRA KUMAR,B.S.INDRAKALA

10 whose total turnover in a year is not less than the turnovers specified in the said sub-Sections, shall be liable to pay tax at the rate of one and half percent of such portion of the total turnover which is not liable to tax under Sections

G. SHUBHA DEVI vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER

Bench: S.SUJATHA,VINEET KOTHARI

10 able to explain the source of money for the cash credit, the addition of Rs.15,07,900/- made by the AO is deleted.” 6. The Revenue took up the matter before the learned Tribunal. The learned Tribunal, however, partly allowed the appeal of the Revenue and deleted the addition made under Section 68

THE PR COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, vs. M/S THE HAMLET,

Bench: S.G.PANDIT,K. V. ARAVIND

68 of the Act. The CIT(A) confirmed the finding recorded by the Assessing Officer. However, the Tribunal examined the Bank Statements and other evidence on record to determine the genuineness of the transaction as well as the identity and creditworthiness of the purchasers. After referring to the Bank Statements of the three purchaser companies, the Tribunal held that

SHRI SURESH KUMAR T JAIN vs. THE INCOME-TAX OFFICER

The appeal is dismissed

Bench: The Hon'Ble Mr. Justice Ravi Malimath

Section 68 in respect of trade credits outstanding at the end of the year on account of purchases, when the purchases have not 10 been

SRI. M SEETHAPATHY RAO vs. UNION OF INDIA

Bench: The Hon’Ble Mr. Justice B. Veerappa

Sections 68 and 69 of the Finance Act. 10. Being aggrieved by the order passed by the 3rd respondent