THE SOUTH INDIAN BANK LTD. vs. THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX

Bench: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HRISHIKESH ROY

D G M E N T Hrishikesh Roy, J. 1. Leave granted in SLP(C) No. 32761/2018 for analogous consideration with the related appeals. 2. The question of law to be answered in the present batch of appeals is on interpretation of Section 14A of the Income Tax Act (for short “the Act”) and the same reads as follows: “Whether

P.R. PRABHAKAR vs. COMMNR. OF INCOME TAX, COIMBATORE

disallowed by the Assessing Officer on the premise that they having incurred loss in respect of export business were not entitled thereto. An appeal preferred thereagainst was rejected by the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeal). The Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, however, on further appeal preferred by the Appellant opined that the commissioner received by the Appellant from the other exporters

THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE 11 (1) BANGALORE vs. M/S ACE MULTI AXES SYSTEMS LTD

Appeals are disposed of in the same terms

Bench: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ADARSH KUMAR GOEL

D-Trib-1. The facts of that case was that the assessee was allowed deduction u/s 80IB from 1993-94 to 2002-03 but in the A.Y. 2003-04 the claim was disallowed on the ground that in the initial year the industrial unit has been formed by reconstruction or splitting up of the existing unit. The ITAT held that

RAMNATH AND CO. vs. THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX

Bench: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE DINESH MAHESHWARI

D of the Tribunal held that the object and spirit of Section 80-O was to mainly encourage Indian technical know-how and skill abroad and since the information was given outside India party and it was used outside India and payment was received in convertible foreign exchange, the condition required for allowing deduction under Section 80-O could said

COMMNR. OF CENTRAL EXCISE, RAIPUR vs. M/S. HIRA CEMENT

Appeal is allowed and the impugned judgment is set aside and the

d) On comparing the two bags submitted by the two noticees No. 1 and 2 which was submitted by them during the course of personal hearing on 3.9.2001, it is clear that notice No. 1’s brand name ’BBC’ was more prominent on their bags whereas in case of bags of noticee No. 2 brand ’HIRA’ with a logo