M/S SUBEX LTD vs. THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-III,

In the result, appeal is partly allowed as indicated

Bench: S.SUJATHA,RAVI V HOSMANI

263, the same would not pass the test of law as enunciated by the Hon'ble Apex Court in Shasun Chemicals and Drugs Ltd., supra, since the same being post revision proceedings and has resulted in giving relief to the assessee on some other ground. Even in terms of Gujarat Narmada Valley Fertilizers Co. Ltd., supra, the claim which

HERBALIFE INTERNATIONAL INDIA PVT LTD vs. THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX

In the result, the assessee's appeal for

Bench: V KAMESWAR RAO,S RACHAIAH

Section 263 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (‘IT Act’ in short) vide order dated 17.03.2014 for the AY:2008- 09. 3. The facts to be noted for the purpose of this order are, the appellant is a Private Limited Company incorporated on 08.10.1998, which is engaged in the business of manufacturing through contract manufacturers and distributing the Advanced

SRI SALIL PUNOOSE vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER

The appeal stands allowed to the extent as

Bench: S.SUJATHA,VINEET SARAN

68,060/- was granted on 27.11.2002. However, the case of the - 3 - assessee was taken up for scrutiny under Section 143(3) of the Act and vide order dated 11.01.2005, the claim of the assessee, that he was a non-resident Indian, was not accepted, and the further claim that the consultancy fees earned outside India was exempted from

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 T T K PRESTIGE LTD vs. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX

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

263 of the Act is available - 30 - and should be resorted to. But initiation of reassessment proceedings will be invalid on the ground of change of opinion. xxxxx xxxxx xxxxx The result of these decisions is that the statute does not require that the information must be extraneous to the record. It is enough if the material, on the basis

COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX vs. S.MADHAVA, M/S BELLARY STEEL ROLING MILLS,

The appeals are allowed

Bench: N.KUMAR,H.S.KEMPANNA

Section 263 of the Act initiated proceedings in respect of allowing deduction of an amount of Rs.20,70,68

COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX vs. S.MADHAVA (HUF)

The appeals are allowed

Bench: N.KUMAR,H.S.KEMPANNA

Section 263 of the Act initiated proceedings in respect of allowing deduction of an amount of Rs.20,70,68

COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX vs. S.PARVATHI MADHAVA

The appeals are allowed

Bench: N.KUMAR,H.S.KEMPANNA

Section 263 of the Act initiated proceedings in respect of allowing deduction of an amount of Rs.20,70,68

COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX vs. S.MADHAVA, M/S BELLARY STEEL ROLING MILLS,

The appeals are allowed

Bench: N.KUMAR,H.S.KEMPANNA

Section 263 of the Act initiated proceedings in respect of allowing deduction of an amount of Rs.20,70,68

COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX vs. S.MADHAVA (HUF)

The appeals are allowed

Bench: N.KUMAR,H.S.KEMPANNA

Section 263 of the Act initiated proceedings in respect of allowing deduction of an amount of Rs.20,70,68

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

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

Bench: ALOK ARADHE,H.T. NARENDRA PRASAD

263 without appreciating that, out of provision of Rs.407,35,36,368/- made for depreciation on investment and the assessee had added back only Rs.2,32,66,62,407/- relating to investments in India and excluded Rs.1,74,68,73,967/- relating to investments 3 outside India when the CIT directed the AO to add back Rs.174,68

PR. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX vs. SMT. G. LAKSHMI ARUNA

Bench: K.SOMASHEKAR,UMESH M ADIGA

68,753 235B – 1,59,97,806 2,90,66,559 13 Total Tax 10,16,70,745 Less: 140A paid 2,00,00,000 Net Amount Payable 8,16,70,745 13. It is further contended by the standing counsel for the appellant, that against the order passed by the Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle

PR. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX vs. SHRI. GALI JANARDHANA REDDY

Bench: K.SOMASHEKAR,UMESH M ADIGA

68,753 12 235B – 1,59,97,806 2,90,66,559 Total Tax 10,16,70,745 Less: 140A paid 2,00,00,000 Net Amount Payable 8,16,70,745 11.It is further contended by the standing councel for the appellant /Revenue that against the order passed by the Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle

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

263 ITR 706 at page 741 also supports the case of the 33 respondent/assessee and are squarely applicable to the present situation is his submission. He alternatively submitted that without prejudice to the contentions urged on the question of liability under Section 6-B of the Act; that in view of the exemption under the proviso 10 to Section

SWARNA SOUHARDA CREDIT CO-OPERATIVE LTD vs. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS)

Bench: The Hon'Ble Mr.Justice S. Sunil Dutt Yadav

68,267/- as being profits and gains of its business after having claimed deduction of Rs.16,54,031/- under Section 80P of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (“the Act”, for short). 3 3. It is further submitted that in the assessment proceedings, the second respondent has disallowed deduction with respect to interest on investment of Rs.13

THE PR. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX vs. M/S MOODBIDRI CO OPERATIVE SERVICES BANK LTD.,

Bench: KRISHNA S DIXIT,G BASAVARAJA

68,999/- under Section 80P(2)(a)(i) of the 1961 Act has been revived by setting aside the revisional order made by the Principal Commissioner of Income Tax. 2. Learned Sr. panel Counsel appearing for the Revenue has framed the following substantial questions of law which read as under: “1. Whether the Hon’ble ITAT is correct