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 BAHUBALI NEMINATH MUTTIN,

The appeals are dismissed

Bench: ANAND BYRAREDDY,RAGHVENDRA S.CHAUHAN

40A (3) of the I.T. Act being undisclosed income Rs.24,216/- (v) Gross profit on suppressed sales being undisclosed income at Rs.19,45,509/- (vi) Addition on account of cessation of liability under Section 41 (1) of the I.T. Act at Rs.2,37,818/-. 3. The assessee had filed an appeal before the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals

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

The appeals stand disposed of, accordingly

Bench: N.KUMAR,B.SREENIVASE GOWDA

68,657/-. 5. Assessee preferred an appeal before the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) [CIT(A)] which was disposed-off by the CIT(A) vide order dated 20.03.2006. Aggrieved by the said order, both the assessee and the Department preferred separate appeals before the ITAT. The ITAT, vide common order dated 30.05.2008 disposed of the appeals. - 19 - Assessment Year

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

The appeals stand disposed of, accordingly

Bench: N.KUMAR,B.SREENIVASE GOWDA

68,657/-. 5. Assessee preferred an appeal before the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) [CIT(A)] which was disposed-off by the CIT(A) vide order dated 20.03.2006. Aggrieved by the said order, both the assessee and the Department preferred separate appeals before the ITAT. The ITAT, vide common order dated 30.05.2008 disposed of the appeals. - 19 - Assessment Year

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

ULTRATECH CEMENT LIMITED vs. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA AND ORS

Bench: S.R.KRISHNA KUMAR,K S HEMALEKHA

SECTION 4 OF THE KARNATAKA HIGH COURT ACT, PRAYING TO i) ALLOW THE ABOVE WRIT APPEAL & ii) SET ASIDE THE JUDGMENT DATED: 26.02.2021 PASSED BY THE LEARNED SINGLE JUDGE IN W.P. NO. 203385/2018 AND ETC. In W.A.No. 200057/2021 BETWEEN: ULTRA TECH CEMENT LIMITED A COMPANY INCORPORATED UNDER THE PROVISIONS OF COMPANIES ACT 1956 HAVING REGISTRED OFFICE AT AHURA CENTER