G. SHUBHA DEVI vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER

Bench: S.SUJATHA,VINEET KOTHARI

68 of the Act. 12. As far as the nature of enquiry conducted by the Assessing Authority is concerned, we find that it has left much to the guess work. The confirmations in writing produced by the Agriculturists could not have been rejected by the Assessing Authority without their evidence being recorded by the Assessing Authority. The Assessing Authority

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

Bench: S.SUJATHA,VINEET KOTHARI

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-Tax, & Anr. 22/86 of hearing to the assessee and that appears to be the reason for setting aside of that Order of the Tribunal

PAWAN KUMAR MEHTA vs. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX

In the result, the substantial question of law Nos

Bench: ALOK ARADHE,HEMANT CHANDANGOUDAR

131 of the Act was recorded on 27.10.2010. The assessee filed return of income for the Assessment Year 2010-11 on 20.09.2010 and declared total income of Rs.79,443/-. Thereafter notice under Section 153A of the Act was issued. The assessee filed a reply by which Assessing Officer was requested to treat the return filed on 20.09.2010 as return

SRI S S JYOTHI PRAKASH vs. THE ADDL COMMISSIONER

The appeal is allowed accordingly

Bench: JAYANT PATEL,B.SREENIVASE GOWDA

68 of the Act and with regard to the addition under Section 69 of the Act, the Tribunal found that the property in question was valued by the Departmental valuer, approved valuer of the assessee and also District Registrar/Appellate Authority for the stamp duty purpose and hence the Tribunal decided the value of the property at the value which

THE PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER vs. M/S OBULAPURAM MINING

Bench: K.SOMASHEKAR,UMESH M ADIGA

68,440/- (b) In respect of Helicopter Hiring Charges 72,23,641/- Total adjustments Rs.112,20,92,081/- 7. It is further stated that the draft assessment order came to be passed under section 144C read with Section 143(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 by adopting the above adjustments to the value of the international transactions

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

The appeals stand disposed of, accordingly

Bench: N.KUMAR,B.SREENIVASE GOWDA

68. What follows is, if the provisions contained in Section 90 is more beneficial to the assessee as compared to the - 85 - terms in the agreement by India with the Government of any country outside India then, notwithstanding such agreement, the provisions of the Act to the extent they are beneficial to that assesseee apply. The benefit claimed

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

The appeals stand disposed of, accordingly

Bench: N.KUMAR,B.SREENIVASE GOWDA

68. What follows is, if the provisions contained in Section 90 is more beneficial to the assessee as compared to the - 85 - terms in the agreement by India with the Government of any country outside India then, notwithstanding such agreement, the provisions of the Act to the extent they are beneficial to that assesseee apply. The benefit claimed

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

131 ITR 597 (SC). Reliance is also placed on the judgment in the case of SHREE SAJJAN MILLS LTD –VS- COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, M.P. AND ANOTHER reported in (1985) 156 ITR page 585 at page 597 and it is submitted based on this judgment of the Supreme Court that while taxing statute has to be strictly construed but reasonable

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

Bench: KRISHNA S.DIXIT,P.KRISHNA BHAT

68 ITR 200 (207) 5 273 ITR 50 - 15 - ITA No. 383 of 2016 from the precincts of Section 260A which employs the expression ‘substantial question of law’. C. AS TO BURDEN OF PROOF AND IMPOSSIBILITY OF ITS DISCHARGE: (i) As already mentioned above, the burden of proving the expenditure incurred ‘wholly and exclusively’ for the purpose of business

VIJAY INDUSTRIES vs. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA

Bench: The Hon’Ble Mr. Justice G.Narendar W.P. No.109226/2015 C/W W.P. No.109404/2015 (Apmc) In W.P. No.109226/2015 Between: Vijay Industires T.M.C. Unit, P.O.Box No.12 Belagavi Road Bailhongal-591102 Rep By Its Proprietor Shri Vijay S/O Shrishail Metgud Age:39 Years, Occ: Business R/O Belagavi Road Bailhongal ... Petitioner (By Sri. R.M.Kulkarni-Adv For Smt. Hemalekha K.S.-Adv) And: 1. The State Of Karnataka Rep By Its Secretary Department Of Agriculture Marketing M.S. Building, Bengaluru. 2. The Director Department Of Agriculture Marketing No.16, 2Nd Raj Bhavan Road Bengaluru-01. 3. The Additional Director Department Of Agriculture Marketing No.16, 2Nd Raj Bhavan Road Bengaluru-01.

131-D in conjunction with the provisions of Rule 91-J of the Rules. 46. From a reading of the Act, the conclusion that follows is that the private market yard is akin to a market area as notified under Sub-section (2)(d) of Section 6 of the Act which is not so in the case

THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX vs. M/S RAJMAHAL SILKS

The appeal is disposed of

Bench: ALOK ARADHE,H.T. NARENDRA PRASAD

68,815/- expenses claimed towards transportation charges were not allowable despite the transporters adducing evidence that they did not execute these transactions and the 3 payments received were only book entries which evidence was not taken into consideration in the proper perspective and consequently recorded a perverse finding? (ii) Whether the Tribunal was correct in holding that the disallowance

M/S JSW STEEL LIMITED vs. DEPUTY DIRECTOR

Bench: The Hon’Ble Mr. Justice Aravind Kumar W.P. No.38642/2016 C/W W.P. Nos.15917/2013, 15918/2013, 39889/2014, 17894/2015, 24444/2015, 19313/2016, 23176/2016, 33740/2016, 42157/2016, 57756/2016, 62102/2016, 4215/2017, 5269/2017, 6159/2017, 6173/2017, 8261/2017, 13160/2017, 14158/2017, 18557/2017, 36309/2017, 36310/2017, 41176/2017, 46318/2017, 48031/2017, 24480/2018, 27705/2018, 27744/2018, 28027/2018, 35991/2018 (Gm-Res) In W.P. No.38642/2016: Between: 1 . Mr. Dyani Antony Paul S/O Late Joseph Paul Aged About 33 Years No.1/77, Vailankani Cottage Padavinangady, Konchady Mugrody Road Mangalore - 575 008. 2 . Mr. Lawence Paul S/O Late Joseph Paul Aged About 42 Years No.1/77, Vailankani Cottage Padavinangady, Konchady Mugrody Road Mangalore – 575 008. ®

Section 60 of PML Act would indicate that whatever orders that are passed under the PML Act, would be applicable in a contracting state or in India. He would submit by interpreting Chapter IX that it cannot be said that order of attachment is vitiated though reciprocal agreement provides otherwise. He would submit that where an order of attachment

SHRI V BHASKAR vs. THE DEPUTY DIRECTOR

Bench: The Hon’Ble Mr. Justice Aravind Kumar W.P. No.38642/2016 C/W W.P. Nos.15917/2013, 15918/2013, 39889/2014, 17894/2015, 24444/2015, 19313/2016, 23176/2016, 33740/2016, 42157/2016, 57756/2016, 62102/2016, 4215/2017, 5269/2017, 6159/2017, 6173/2017, 8261/2017, 13160/2017, 14158/2017, 18557/2017, 36309/2017, 36310/2017, 41176/2017, 46318/2017, 48031/2017, 24480/2018, 27705/2018, 27744/2018, 28027/2018, 35991/2018 (Gm-Res) In W.P. No.38642/2016: Between: 1 . Mr. Dyani Antony Paul S/O Late Joseph Paul Aged About 33 Years No.1/77, Vailankani Cottage Padavinangady, Konchady Mugrody Road Mangalore - 575 008. 2 . Mr. Lawence Paul S/O Late Joseph Paul Aged About 42 Years No.1/77, Vailankani Cottage Padavinangady, Konchady Mugrody Road Mangalore – 575 008. ®

Section 60 of PML Act would indicate that whatever orders that are passed under the PML Act, would be applicable in a contracting state or in India. He would submit by interpreting Chapter IX that it cannot be said that order of attachment is vitiated though reciprocal agreement provides otherwise. He would submit that where an order of attachment

SHRI S THIMMARAJU vs. THE DEPUTY DIRECTOR

Bench: The Hon’Ble Mr. Justice Aravind Kumar W.P. No.38642/2016 C/W W.P. Nos.15917/2013, 15918/2013, 39889/2014, 17894/2015, 24444/2015, 19313/2016, 23176/2016, 33740/2016, 42157/2016, 57756/2016, 62102/2016, 4215/2017, 5269/2017, 6159/2017, 6173/2017, 8261/2017, 13160/2017, 14158/2017, 18557/2017, 36309/2017, 36310/2017, 41176/2017, 46318/2017, 48031/2017, 24480/2018, 27705/2018, 27744/2018, 28027/2018, 35991/2018 (Gm-Res) In W.P. No.38642/2016: Between: 1 . Mr. Dyani Antony Paul S/O Late Joseph Paul Aged About 33 Years No.1/77, Vailankani Cottage Padavinangady, Konchady Mugrody Road Mangalore - 575 008. 2 . Mr. Lawence Paul S/O Late Joseph Paul Aged About 42 Years No.1/77, Vailankani Cottage Padavinangady, Konchady Mugrody Road Mangalore – 575 008. ®

Section 60 of PML Act would indicate that whatever orders that are passed under the PML Act, would be applicable in a contracting state or in India. He would submit by interpreting Chapter IX that it cannot be said that order of attachment is vitiated though reciprocal agreement provides otherwise. He would submit that where an order of attachment

NATARAJ DAKSHINAMURHTY vs. THE ASSISTANT DIRECTOR

Bench: The Hon’Ble Mr. Justice Aravind Kumar W.P. No.38642/2016 C/W W.P. Nos.15917/2013, 15918/2013, 39889/2014, 17894/2015, 24444/2015, 19313/2016, 23176/2016, 33740/2016, 42157/2016, 57756/2016, 62102/2016, 4215/2017, 5269/2017, 6159/2017, 6173/2017, 8261/2017, 13160/2017, 14158/2017, 18557/2017, 36309/2017, 36310/2017, 41176/2017, 46318/2017, 48031/2017, 24480/2018, 27705/2018, 27744/2018, 28027/2018, 35991/2018 (Gm-Res) In W.P. No.38642/2016: Between: 1 . Mr. Dyani Antony Paul S/O Late Joseph Paul Aged About 33 Years No.1/77, Vailankani Cottage Padavinangady, Konchady Mugrody Road Mangalore - 575 008. 2 . Mr. Lawence Paul S/O Late Joseph Paul Aged About 42 Years No.1/77, Vailankani Cottage Padavinangady, Konchady Mugrody Road Mangalore – 575 008. ®

Section 60 of PML Act would indicate that whatever orders that are passed under the PML Act, would be applicable in a contracting state or in India. He would submit by interpreting Chapter IX that it cannot be said that order of attachment is vitiated though reciprocal agreement provides otherwise. He would submit that where an order of attachment

C MAHADESH @ AVVAMAHADESH vs. THE DEPUTY DIRECTOR

Bench: The Hon’Ble Mr. Justice Aravind Kumar W.P. No.38642/2016 C/W W.P. Nos.15917/2013, 15918/2013, 39889/2014, 17894/2015, 24444/2015, 19313/2016, 23176/2016, 33740/2016, 42157/2016, 57756/2016, 62102/2016, 4215/2017, 5269/2017, 6159/2017, 6173/2017, 8261/2017, 13160/2017, 14158/2017, 18557/2017, 36309/2017, 36310/2017, 41176/2017, 46318/2017, 48031/2017, 24480/2018, 27705/2018, 27744/2018, 28027/2018, 35991/2018 (Gm-Res) In W.P. No.38642/2016: Between: 1 . Mr. Dyani Antony Paul S/O Late Joseph Paul Aged About 33 Years No.1/77, Vailankani Cottage Padavinangady, Konchady Mugrody Road Mangalore - 575 008. 2 . Mr. Lawence Paul S/O Late Joseph Paul Aged About 42 Years No.1/77, Vailankani Cottage Padavinangady, Konchady Mugrody Road Mangalore – 575 008. ®

Section 60 of PML Act would indicate that whatever orders that are passed under the PML Act, would be applicable in a contracting state or in India. He would submit by interpreting Chapter IX that it cannot be said that order of attachment is vitiated though reciprocal agreement provides otherwise. He would submit that where an order of attachment

M GOPI vs. THE JOINT DIRECTOR

Bench: The Hon’Ble Mr. Justice Aravind Kumar W.P. No.38642/2016 C/W W.P. Nos.15917/2013, 15918/2013, 39889/2014, 17894/2015, 24444/2015, 19313/2016, 23176/2016, 33740/2016, 42157/2016, 57756/2016, 62102/2016, 4215/2017, 5269/2017, 6159/2017, 6173/2017, 8261/2017, 13160/2017, 14158/2017, 18557/2017, 36309/2017, 36310/2017, 41176/2017, 46318/2017, 48031/2017, 24480/2018, 27705/2018, 27744/2018, 28027/2018, 35991/2018 (Gm-Res) In W.P. No.38642/2016: Between: 1 . Mr. Dyani Antony Paul S/O Late Joseph Paul Aged About 33 Years No.1/77, Vailankani Cottage Padavinangady, Konchady Mugrody Road Mangalore - 575 008. 2 . Mr. Lawence Paul S/O Late Joseph Paul Aged About 42 Years No.1/77, Vailankani Cottage Padavinangady, Konchady Mugrody Road Mangalore – 575 008. ®

Section 60 of PML Act would indicate that whatever orders that are passed under the PML Act, would be applicable in a contracting state or in India. He would submit by interpreting Chapter IX that it cannot be said that order of attachment is vitiated though reciprocal agreement provides otherwise. He would submit that where an order of attachment

M GOPI vs. THE JOINT DIRECTOR

Bench: The Hon’Ble Mr. Justice Aravind Kumar W.P. No.38642/2016 C/W W.P. Nos.15917/2013, 15918/2013, 39889/2014, 17894/2015, 24444/2015, 19313/2016, 23176/2016, 33740/2016, 42157/2016, 57756/2016, 62102/2016, 4215/2017, 5269/2017, 6159/2017, 6173/2017, 8261/2017, 13160/2017, 14158/2017, 18557/2017, 36309/2017, 36310/2017, 41176/2017, 46318/2017, 48031/2017, 24480/2018, 27705/2018, 27744/2018, 28027/2018, 35991/2018 (Gm-Res) In W.P. No.38642/2016: Between: 1 . Mr. Dyani Antony Paul S/O Late Joseph Paul Aged About 33 Years No.1/77, Vailankani Cottage Padavinangady, Konchady Mugrody Road Mangalore - 575 008. 2 . Mr. Lawence Paul S/O Late Joseph Paul Aged About 42 Years No.1/77, Vailankani Cottage Padavinangady, Konchady Mugrody Road Mangalore – 575 008. ®

Section 60 of PML Act would indicate that whatever orders that are passed under the PML Act, would be applicable in a contracting state or in India. He would submit by interpreting Chapter IX that it cannot be said that order of attachment is vitiated though reciprocal agreement provides otherwise. He would submit that where an order of attachment