ARUN K THIAGARAJAN vs. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX

In the result, the order passed by the assessing officer and

Bench: ALOK ARADHE,M.NAGAPRASANNA

89,375/-. The assessee filed return of income on 09.07.2003 for Assessment year 2003-04 declaring income of Rs.1,68,52,920/-, under the head income from salary, house property, capital gains and income 4 from other sources and paid tax of Rs.49,57,706/-. The assessing officer issued a notice under Section

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

In the result, I proceed to pass the following:

Bench: The Hon’Ble Mr.Justice Aravind Kumar

Section 35(2AB) in respect of Research and Development expenditure in a sum of ` 89,35,48,193/-, a sum of ` 48,41,82,071/- was disallowed and same came to be added to the income of assessee-company. Further, a sum of `2,63,68

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

The appeals stand disposed of, accordingly

Bench: N.KUMAR,B.SREENIVASE GOWDA

89,110/- for assessment year 2001-02. The demand, after making adjustments for interest, advance tax and tax refunded, was quantified at Rs.261,45,68,657/-. 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

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

The appeals stand disposed of, accordingly

Bench: N.KUMAR,B.SREENIVASE GOWDA

89,110/- for assessment year 2001-02. The demand, after making adjustments for interest, advance tax and tax refunded, was quantified at Rs.261,45,68,657/-. 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

SRI CHANDRAKAR K KAMATH vs. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF

Bench: The Hon’Ble Mr.Justice Aravind Kumar

89 200 or the proviso to sub-section (3) of Section 206C. (4) The provisions of this section shall apply to a statement referred to in sub- section (3) of Section 200 or the proviso to sub-section (3) of Section 206C which is to be delivered or caused to be delivered

M/S. K K BROTHERS vs. UNION OF INDIA

Bench: The Hon’Ble Mr.Justice Aravind Kumar

89 200 or the proviso to sub-section (3) of Section 206C. (4) The provisions of this section shall apply to a statement referred to in sub- section (3) of Section 200 or the proviso to sub-section (3) of Section 206C which is to be delivered or caused to be delivered

M/S NEW MEDIA COMPANY vs. UNION OF INDIA

Bench: The Hon’Ble Mr.Justice Aravind Kumar

89 200 or the proviso to sub-section (3) of Section 206C. (4) The provisions of this section shall apply to a statement referred to in sub- section (3) of Section 200 or the proviso to sub-section (3) of Section 206C which is to be delivered or caused to be delivered

M/S PRODIGY TECHNOVATIONS PVT LTD vs. UNION OF INDIA

Bench: The Hon’Ble Mr.Justice Aravind Kumar

89 200 or the proviso to sub-section (3) of Section 206C. (4) The provisions of this section shall apply to a statement referred to in sub- section (3) of Section 200 or the proviso to sub-section (3) of Section 206C which is to be delivered or caused to be delivered

M/S TEACHERS CO OPERATIVE BANK vs. UNION OF INDIA

Bench: The Hon’Ble Mr.Justice Aravind Kumar

89 200 or the proviso to sub-section (3) of Section 206C. (4) The provisions of this section shall apply to a statement referred to in sub- section (3) of Section 200 or the proviso to sub-section (3) of Section 206C which is to be delivered or caused to be delivered

SRI. FATHERAJ SINGHVI vs. UNION OF INDIA

Bench: The Hon’Ble Mr.Justice Aravind Kumar

89 200 or the proviso to sub-section (3) of Section 206C. (4) The provisions of this section shall apply to a statement referred to in sub- section (3) of Section 200 or the proviso to sub-section (3) of Section 206C which is to be delivered or caused to be delivered

M/S. LAKSHMINIRMAN BANGALORE PVT.LTD vs. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX

Bench: The Hon’Ble Mr.Justice Aravind Kumar

89 200 or the proviso to sub-section (3) of Section 206C. (4) The provisions of this section shall apply to a statement referred to in sub- section (3) of Section 200 or the proviso to sub-section (3) of Section 206C which is to be delivered or caused to be delivered

ECOLE SOLUTIONS PVT LTD vs. UNION OF INDIA

Bench: The Hon’Ble Mr.Justice Aravind Kumar

89 200 or the proviso to sub-section (3) of Section 206C. (4) The provisions of this section shall apply to a statement referred to in sub- section (3) of Section 200 or the proviso to sub-section (3) of Section 206C which is to be delivered or caused to be delivered

MINTENT SERVICED APARTMENTS PVT LTD., vs. UNION OF INDIA

Bench: The Hon’Ble Mr.Justice Aravind Kumar

89 200 or the proviso to sub-section (3) of Section 206C. (4) The provisions of this section shall apply to a statement referred to in sub- section (3) of Section 200 or the proviso to sub-section (3) of Section 206C which is to be delivered or caused to be delivered

M/S PRAKASH BUS CORPORATION PVT LTD vs. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF

Bench: The Hon’Ble Mr.Justice Aravind Kumar

89 200 or the proviso to sub-section (3) of Section 206C. (4) The provisions of this section shall apply to a statement referred to in sub- section (3) of Section 200 or the proviso to sub-section (3) of Section 206C which is to be delivered or caused to be delivered

M/S MAHRISHI MELTCHEMS PRIVATE LIMITED vs. UNION OF INDIA

Bench: The Hon’Ble Mr.Justice Aravind Kumar

89 200 or the proviso to sub-section (3) of Section 206C. (4) The provisions of this section shall apply to a statement referred to in sub- section (3) of Section 200 or the proviso to sub-section (3) of Section 206C which is to be delivered or caused to be delivered

DR V. NARAYANASWAMY vs. UNION OF INDIA

Bench: The Hon’Ble Mr.Justice Aravind Kumar

89 200 or the proviso to sub-section (3) of Section 206C. (4) The provisions of this section shall apply to a statement referred to in sub- section (3) of Section 200 or the proviso to sub-section (3) of Section 206C which is to be delivered or caused to be delivered

M/S NEW MEDIA COMPANY vs. UNION OF INDIA

Bench: The Hon’Ble Mr.Justice Aravind Kumar

89 200 or the proviso to sub-section (3) of Section 206C. (4) The provisions of this section shall apply to a statement referred to in sub- section (3) of Section 200 or the proviso to sub-section (3) of Section 206C which is to be delivered or caused to be delivered

SREE C B EDUCATIONAL AND CULTURAL TRUST vs. UNION OF INDIA

Bench: The Hon’Ble Mr.Justice Aravind Kumar

89 200 or the proviso to sub-section (3) of Section 206C. (4) The provisions of this section shall apply to a statement referred to in sub- section (3) of Section 200 or the proviso to sub-section (3) of Section 206C which is to be delivered or caused to be delivered