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

Bench: S.SUJATHA,VINEET KOTHARI

SECTION 37 OF THE ACT. Page No 7 CIT Vs. Rajasthan State Government Sugar Mills Ltd 393 ITR 421 (Raj) 32-42 8 CIT Vs. G Balraj [2017] 390 ITR 50 (Kar) 43-47 10 CIT Vs. Chandulal Keshaval & Co., 38 ITR 601 (SC) 58-63 15 Sasoon J David

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

Bench: S.SUJATHA,VINEET KOTHARI

SECTION 37 OF THE ACT. Page No 7 CIT Vs. Rajasthan State Government Sugar Mills Ltd 393 ITR 421 (Raj) 32-42 8 CIT Vs. G Balraj [2017] 390 ITR 50 (Kar) 43-47 10 CIT Vs. Chandulal Keshaval & Co., 38 ITR 601 (SC) 58-63 15 Sasoon J David

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 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)

68 be introduced. Clause (vi) of Section 17(2) does not occur in depiction to treat anything as a fringe benefit as perquisite which may otherwise not come within its purview. In fact, none of the provisions under Section 17(2) or under the impugned rules deviate from the basis concept of perquisites and fringe benefits as part

THE PR. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX vs. M/S GOLDMAN SACHS SERVICES PVT LTD

Bench: The Hon'Ble Mr. Justice V. Srishananda Civil Revision Petition No.29/2019 Between

37 provided for an appeal to the civil court and the application of the Code not having been expressly barred, the revisional jurisdiction of the High Court gets attracted. If that be so, the bar under Section 5 will not be attracted because conferment of appellate power on the civil court in Part I of the Act attracts

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

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

Section 68[3][ca] of the Act. It is the specific contention of the petitioners that the routes claimed by the respondent- Corporation do not fall within any of the routes so formulated by the State Government under the said Notification. This is a factual aspect which ought to have been considered by the respondent-Authority, particularly, in view

AJITH U SHENOY vs. THE REGIONAL TRANSPORT AUTHORITY

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

Section 68[3][ca] of the Act. It is the specific contention of the petitioners that the routes claimed by the respondent- Corporation do not fall within any of the routes so formulated by the State Government under the said Notification. This is a factual aspect which ought to have been considered by the respondent-Authority, particularly, in view

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

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

The appeals stand disposed of, accordingly

Bench: N.KUMAR,B.SREENIVASE GOWDA

37. It is in this background, when we notice Section 90 of the Act – relief from double taxation is granted in the following circumstances. - 52 - Firstly, Section 90 (1)(b) of the Act speaks about avoidance of double taxation i.e., Central Government may enter into an agreement with the Government of any country for the avoidance of double

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

The appeals stand disposed of, accordingly

Bench: N.KUMAR,B.SREENIVASE GOWDA

37. It is in this background, when we notice Section 90 of the Act – relief from double taxation is granted in the following circumstances. - 52 - Firstly, Section 90 (1)(b) of the Act speaks about avoidance of double taxation i.e., Central Government may enter into an agreement with the Government of any country for the avoidance of double

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

Bench: KRISHNA S.DIXIT,P.KRISHNA BHAT

37, which has the following text: “Any expenditure (not being expenditure of the nature described in section 30 to 36 and not being in the nature of capital expenditure or personal expenses of the assessee) laid out or expended wholly and exclusively for the purpose of the business or profession shall be allowed in computing the income chargeable under

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

Bench: S.SUJATHA,VINEET KOTHARI

37. Further, he drew our attention to Section 115-O and Section 115-Q of the Act, particularly, the Explanation below Section 115-Q of the Act which stands amended by Finance Act 2018, with effect from 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

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

Bench: K.SOMASHEKAR,UMESH M ADIGA

37. The principle laid down by this Court in Jaganmohan Rao's case, therefore, is only to the extent that once an assessment is validly reopened by issuance of notice under Section 22(2) of the 1922 Act (corresponding to Section 148 of the Act) the previous under assessment is set aside and the ITO has the jurisdiction

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

The appeals are dismissed

Bench: ARAVIND KUMAR,N.KUMAR

37. It was contended that for imposing penalty under Section 271 (1)(c) of the Act, mens rea is not the requirement. Therefore, once the aforesaid conditions mentioned in the aforesaid provision is satisfied, the imposition of penalty is automatic. There is no discretion left with the authorities in the matter of imposing penalty. In support of the said

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

The appeals are dismissed

Bench: ANAND BYRAREDDY,RAGHVENDRA S.CHAUHAN

37,818/-. 3. The assessee had filed an appeal before the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals). The said authority had deleted the addition under Section 69B and confirmed the addition in stock at Rs.64,28,166/- as against addition made by the assessing authority at Rs.1,32,72,013/-. The addition for undisclosed credits under Section 68

COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX vs. M/S SWADESHI INTERNATIONALS

The appeal is disposed off

Bench: The Hon'Ble Mr. Justice Ravi Malimath

68,78,000/- 6 paid to trustees even though the same is against to provision of Section 40A(2)(b) of the Income Tax Act? 4. Learned counsel for the appellant contends that yet another question of law arises for consideration, which reads as follows: Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal

RNS INFRASTRUCTURE LIMITED vs. INCOME TAX SETTLEMENT COMMISSIONER

In the result, writ petitions are allowed

Bench: The Hon’Ble Mr. Justice L. Narayana Swamy Writ Petition Nos.46275-46289 Of 2016 (T-It)

68,44,556/-. It is stated that the department has failed to follow the correct procedure in relation to the digital evidence. It is stated the digital evidence provided to the petitioner by the Department had no semblance of reality against whopping Rs.99.00 crore. The amount found in the digital evidence was only Rs.19,09,609.00. Therefore, the figures allegedly

M/S ANS CONSTRUCTIONS LTD vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF COMMERCIAL

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

37. Under the KVAT Act, tax is leviable on every sale of goods, irrespective of whether it is the first, second or third sale. However, in order to ensure that the Act does not fall foul of the prohibition placed by the Constitution of India on double taxation, the provisions of the Act permit a dealer to deduct the amount