SCORPIO IRON LTD,PANAJI vs. ITO, WARD - 1(4), PANAJI

In the result, both appeals of the assessee are allowed

68,545/- based on the order of the AO-TP u/s 92CA of the Income Tax Act'1961, in spite of the fact that the assesse or their AE has not taken any benefit or exemption / deduction under the Income Tax Act. The Id AO(TP) and Dispute Resolution Panel-2, Bangalore, 4) has willfully ignored that the assesee

SHREE AMBEY FORGING PRIVAT LIMITED,PANAJI vs. ITO, WARD - (4), PANAJI

In the result, both appeals of the assessee are allowed

68,545/- based on the order of the AO-TP u/s 92CA of the Income Tax Act'1961, in spite of the fact that the assesse or their AE has not taken any benefit or exemption / deduction under the Income Tax Act. The Id AO(TP) and Dispute Resolution Panel-2, Bangalore, 4) has willfully ignored that the assesee

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE - 1, UDUPI vs. M/S MANIPAL TECHNOLOGIES LIMITED, MANIPAL

In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Chandra Mohan Garg & Shri Girish Agrawalassessment Year: 2013-14 Dcit, Circle-1, Udupi M/S. Manipal Technologies Limited, Vs. Udayavani Building, Manipal- 576104. Pan: Aabcm 9516 H (Appellant) (Respondent) Present For: Assessee By : Smt. Sheetal Borkar, Advocate Revenue By : Shri Mayur Kamble, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing : 13.06.2022 Date Of Pronouncement : 15.06.2022 O R D E R Per Girish Agrawal: The Present Appeal Filed By The Department Is Arising Out Of The Order Of Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals), Mangaluru In Appeal No. Ita No. 10030/Udp/Cit(A)Mng/2016-17 Dated 27.11.2017 Against The Order Of Dcit, Circle- 1, Udupi Passed U/S 143(3) Of The Income-Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter Referred To As ‘The Act’) Dated 29.03.2016. 2. There Are Six Grounds Of Appeal Taken By The Department In The Present Appeal, All Of Which Relate To The Disallowance Made U/S 14A Of The Act R.W.R. 8D(2)(Ii) & 8D(2)(Iii) Of The Income-Tax Rules, 1962 (Hereinafter Referred To As ‘The Rules), Amounting To Rs. 1,61,65,201/-.

65 Taxmann.com 295 (Kar), ld. CIT(A) deleted the addition made by the AO u/s 14A of the Act r.w.r. 8D(2)((ii) and (iii) of the Rules. 7. Aggrieved, the Department is in appeal before the Tribunal. 8. Before us, the ld. counsel of the assessee Smt. Sheetal Borkar submitted that the present issue is squarely covered