THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, vs. M/S BAHUBALI NEMINATH MUTTIN,

The appeals are dismissed

Bench: ANAND BYRAREDDY,RAGHVENDRA S.CHAUHAN

68 of the I.T. Act at Rs.10,72,247/- was confirmed. The addition on account of gross profit on suppressed sales was deleted 5 and the addition under Section 41 (1) was confirmed. That order was challenged by both, the assessee as well as the Revenue before the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT). The assessee had raised an additional

THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX vs. M/S.GAYATHRI ENTERPRISES

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

SECTION 260A OF THE INCOME TAX ACT, 1961, PRAYING TO SET ASIDE ORDER DATED 18.12.2003 PASSED IN IT(SS)A NO. 53/BANG/2003 FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 1989-90 UPTO 22.07.1998 AND ETC., In ITA No. 68

SRI SURESH KUMAR T JAIN vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER

Bench: S.SUJATHA,K.NATARAJAN

260A OF THE ACT (ITA NO.160/2010) AND MAY PASS A SPEAKING ORDER WITH REGARD TO THE SAME. - 2 - THIS PETITION COMING ON FOR ADMISSION, THIS DAY, S. SUJATHA, J., MADE THE FOLLOWING: O R D E R This review petition is filed by the petitioner seeking review of the judgment dated 20.11.2018 passed in ITA No.160/2010 insofar as paragraphs

SHRI NARAYAN RAO HEBRI vs. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX

The appeal stands dismissed

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

260A of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (for short, “the I.T. Act”), assailing the order dated 22.05.2025 passed in ITA No.2051/Bang/2024 by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, ‘C’ Bench, Bengaluru (for short, “the Tribunal”), relating to the Assessment Year 2017– 18. - 3 - ITA No. 166 of 2025 3. The appellant–assessee has raised the following substantial questions

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

260A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (for short, 'The Act') by the Revenue challenging the order passed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Bengaluru, in MP Nos.265 and 266/Bang/2018 (in ITA Nos.226 and 229/Bang/2013) dated 21.06.2019 for the Assessment Years 2007-08 and 2008-09 vide Annexure-E, whereby the appeals filed by the Revenue came

PR COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX 2 vs. AURA JEWELS

Bench: CHIEF JUSTICE,C M JOSHI

260A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 [the Act] impugning an order dated 24.02.2025 passed by the learned Income Tax Appellate Tribunal [the Tribunal] in ITA.No.684/Bang/2023 in respect of the Assessment Year [A.Y.] 2017-18. 2. The principal controversy before the Tribunal was regarding an addition of `6,61,00,000/- (Rupees Six Crores Sixty One Lakhs Only) made

THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX vs. SRI N LEELA KUMAR

Bench: N.KUMAR,RATHNAKALA

260A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 praying to (i) formulate the substantial questions of law stated therein, (ii) allow the appeal and set-aside the order passed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Bangalore in IT(SS)A111/Bang/2004 dated 19.10.2006 and confirm the order passed by the Appellate Commissioner confirming the order passed by the Assistant Commissioner of Income

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

JINESH (HUF) vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER

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

Bench: ALOK ARADHE,R. NATARAJ

260A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as the Act for short) has been preferred by the assessee. The subject matter of the appeal pertains to the Assessment year 2005-06. The appeal was admitted by a bench of this Court vide order dated 04.09.2012 on the following substantial questions of law: (i) Whether 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

260A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as the Act for short) has been preferred by the assessee against the order dated 08.05.2015 passed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (hereinafter referred to as 'the tribunal' for short). The subject matter of the appeal pertains to the Assessment year 2010-11. The appeal was admitted

COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX vs. M/S PRIMAL PROJECTS (P) LTD

In the result, the appeal fails and is hereby

Bench: ALOK ARADHE,H.T. NARENDRA PRASAD

68,51,429/- under Section 80IA(4)(iii) of the Act. The assessing authority by an order dated 26.10.2004 disallowed the claim of the assessee on the ground that the assessee has not complied with the mandatory conditions stipulated in the scheme framed by the Central Government viz., Industrial Parks Scheme, 2002 (hereinafter referred to as 'the scheme

PR. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX vs. M/S SUBRAMANYA CONSTRUCTIONS

In the result, we do not find any merit in these

Bench: ALOK ARADHE,M.G.S. KAMAL

260A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as the Act for short) have been preferred by the revenue against common order dated 20.02.2015 passed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (hereinafter referred to as 'the tribunal' for short). I.T.A.No.398/2015 arises from the order of the tribunal by which appeal preferred by the revenue has been dismissed

PR,COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX vs. M/S SUBRAMANYA CONSTRUCTIONS

In the result, we do not find any merit in these

Bench: ALOK ARADHE,M.G.S. KAMAL

260A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as the Act for short) have been preferred by the revenue against common order dated 20.02.2015 passed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (hereinafter referred to as 'the tribunal' for short). I.T.A.No.398/2015 arises from the order of the tribunal by which appeal preferred by the revenue has been dismissed

THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX vs. MRS SHAKUNTALA DEVI

Appeal is hereby dismissed

Bench: ARAVIND KUMAR,JAYANT PATEL

260A OF THE INCOME TAX ACT, 1961 PRAYING TO ALLOW THE APPEAL AND SET ASIDE THE ORDERS PASSED BY THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, BANGALORE IN ITA NO.1170/BANG/2008 DATED 30.01.2009 AND CONFIRM THE ORDER OF THE APPELLATE COMMISSIONER CONFIRMING THE ORDER PASSED BY THE DY. DIRECTOR OF INCOME TAX, (INTL., TAXN.,) CIRCLE-II(1), BANGALORE AND ETC., 3 THIS APPEAL

COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-III vs. M/S MENZIES AVIATION BOBBA (B'LORE) PVT LTD.,

In the result, the appeals fail and are hereby

Bench: ALOK ARADHE,R. NATARAJ

68 GST 239. 6. On the other hand, learned Senior counsel for the assessee submitted that in order to avail off the benefit of Section 80IA(4)(i) of the Act, the assessee is required to satisfy two conditions, firstly that the assessee should enter into an agreement with the statutory body and consequently, the assessee should be engaged

PR. COMMISSIONER OF vs. M/S MENZIES AVIATION

In the result, the appeals fail and are hereby

Bench: ALOK ARADHE,R. NATARAJ

68 GST 239. 6. On the other hand, learned Senior counsel for the assessee submitted that in order to avail off the benefit of Section 80IA(4)(i) of the Act, the assessee is required to satisfy two conditions, firstly that the assessee should enter into an agreement with the statutory body and consequently, the assessee should be engaged

PR.COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-2 vs. M/S MENZIES AVIATION

In the result, the appeals fail and are hereby

Bench: SATISH CHANDRA SHARMA,SACHIN SHANKAR MAGADUM

68 GST 239. 6. On the other hand, learned Senior counsel for the assessee submitted that in order to avail off the 11 benefit of Section 80IA(4)(i) of the Act, the assessee is required to satisfy two conditions, firstly that the assessee should enter into an agreement with the statutory body and consequently, the assessee should

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

260A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as the Act for short) has been preferred by the assessee against the order dated 31.10.2014 passed by Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (hereinafter referred to as 'the tribunal' for short). The subject matter of the appeal pertains to the Assessment year 1999-00. The appeal was admitted by a bench