SRI. M SEETHAPATHY RAO vs. UNION OF INDIA

Bench: The Hon’Ble Mr. Justice B. Veerappa

Sections 68 and 69 of the Finance Act. 5 5. Being aggrieved by the order passed by the 3rd respondent

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

The appeal stands dismissed

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

sections 68, 69, 69A, 69B, 69C & 69D of the IT Act and (ii) the Learned Assessing Officer levied tax & surcharge

SHRI SURESH KUMAR T JAIN vs. THE INCOME-TAX OFFICER

The appeal is dismissed

Bench: The Hon'Ble Mr. Justice Ravi Malimath

Section 68 does not apply. f. The assesssee also submitted that out of total creditors amounting of Rs.29,75,621/- shown in annexure-II, a sum of Rs.17,69

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

Bench: S.SUJATHA,VINEET KOTHARI

69-A of the Act by the Tribunal were set aside. 26. In the said judgment of the Allahabad High Court, it is true that the Tribunal cannot travel beyond the subject matter of the Appeal, but the additions under Section 69A, a different provision while deleting the additions under Section 68

PAWAN KUMAR MEHTA vs. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX

In the result, the substantial question of law Nos

Bench: ALOK ARADHE,HEMANT CHANDANGOUDAR

68 nor under Section 69 of the Act. It is also submitted that there is a presumption about 7 the books

THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX vs. SRI N LEELA KUMAR

Bench: N.KUMAR,RATHNAKALA

sections 68, 69, 69A, 69B and 69C shall, so far as may be, - 12 - apply and references to "financial

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

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

68. Submission is that a fiction created for the purpose of section 5[3][a] of the Act cannot be accepted and applied for the charge created under section 6-B of the Act. 69

THE COMMISSIONER vs. M/S VIJAYA BANK

Appeals are allowed in part

Bench: ALOK ARADHE,RAVI V HOSMANI

68. The Hon’ble Supreme Court while considering the provisions of Section 162 of the Code of Criminal Procedure and Section 27 of the Evidence Act in the case of 59 Vijender v. State of Delhi reported in (1997) 6 SCC 171 held at paragraph-17 as under: 17. Another elementary statutory breach which we notice in recording

M/S UNITED TELECOM LTD vs. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF

Appeals are allowed in part

Bench: S.SUJATHA,JAYANT PATEL

68. The Hon’ble Supreme Court while considering the provisions of Section 162 of the Code of Criminal Procedure and Section 27 of the Evidence Act in the case of 59 Vijender v. State of Delhi reported in (1997) 6 SCC 171 held at paragraph-17 as under: 17. Another elementary statutory breach which we notice in recording

KHALEEL AHMED K R vs. STATE OF KARNATAKA

Bench: B.VEERAPPA,K.NATARAJAN

68, 69, 412 & 70; Sri D.S.Malipatil, Adv. for R-372; Sri Subramanya Jois, Senior Counsel for Sri M.Nagaprasanna, Adv. for R-224, 358, 360, 205, 283, 335, 379, 390, 218, 273 & 141; Sri D.S.Manjegowda, Adv. for R-108, 605, 520 & 603; Sri Narasimhan, Adv. for Sri Naveed Ahamed

SHRI HARISH WADHWA vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER,

Appeal is allowed

Bench: SATISH CHANDRA SHARMA,V SRISHANANDA

68 of the Income Tax Act, 1961? (iv) Whether the Tribunal was right in law in confirming the addition of Rs.28,71,972/- (credit card expenses) towards unexplained expenditure under Section 69C of the Act, without considering that the assessee had declared income under the provisions of Section 44AD of the Act? (v) Whether the Tribunal was right

SRI B N MARIYAPPA vs. THE BBMP COMMISSIONER

Bench: The Hon'Ble Mr. Justice M. Nagaprasanna

69 YEARS, R/AT NO.691, 7TH CROSS, BAGALAGUNTE, NAGASANDRA, BENGALURU – 560 073. ... RESPONDENTS (BY SRI S.N.PRASHANTH CHANDRA, ADVOCATE FOR R1 TO R3 (VIDEO CONFERENCING); SRI AKSH V.T., ADVOCATE FOR R4 (PHYSICAL HEARING)) THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO DIRECT THE R-1 TO 3 TO TAKE IMMEDIATE ACTION FOR TERMINATING

THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX vs. M/S KARNATAKA CO-OPERATIVE MILK PRODUCERS

Appeal is dismissed with costs

Bench: The Hon’Ble Mr. Justice N.K.Sudhindrarao R.S.A.No.70/2007

69, 75, 77, 88 and 89, no document shall be registered under this Act, unless the persons 64 executing such document, or their representatives, assigns or agents authorized as aforesaid, appear before the registering officer within the time allowed for presentation under sections 23, 24, 25 and 26: Provided that, if owing to urgent necessity or unavoidable accident

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

The appeals stand disposed of, accordingly

Bench: N.KUMAR,B.SREENIVASE GOWDA

68 - 52. Section 10A (1) speaks of “deduction”. The deduction is of profits and gains for a period of ten consecutive assessment years. The said deduction is from the total income of the assessee. Therefore, the total income before allowing the said deduction includes the profits and gains from the business referred to in Section 10A(1). Section

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

The appeals stand disposed of, accordingly

Bench: N.KUMAR,B.SREENIVASE GOWDA

68 - 52. Section 10A (1) speaks of “deduction”. The deduction is of profits and gains for a period of ten consecutive assessment years. The said deduction is from the total income of the assessee. Therefore, the total income before allowing the said deduction includes the profits and gains from the business referred to in Section 10A(1). Section

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

THE OFFICIAL LIQUIDATOR OF vs. REGISTRAR OF TRADE MARKS

Bench: The Hon'Ble Mr.Justice S.R.Krishna Kumar

68 - Company or its creditors to be validated under Section 536(2) as held in Board of Industrial and Financial Reconstruction, Jaipur Golden Transport Company Ltd and Ors. vs. Hindustan Transmission Products Ltd. (MANU/MH/1453/2012). (vii) As rightly contended by Sri. Dhyan Chinnappa, learned Senior counsel that the expression, ‘disposition’ contained in Section 536(2) has a very wide