Commissioner of Income tAx, vs. Sri Padala Ramakrishna Reddy,

The appeals stand dismissed

Bench: RAMESH RANGANATHAN,M.SATYANARAYANA MURTHY

10A or section 10B has been claimed, the undertaking shall not be entitled to the deduction under this section : Provided further that no deduction under this section shall be allowed to any undertaking for the assessment year beginning on the 1st day of April, 2010 and subsequent years. (2) This section applies to any undertaking which fulfils the following conditions

The Commissioner of Income Tax [Central] vs. Akula Nageswara Rao

The appeals stand dismissed

Bench: SANJAY KUMAR,GUDISEVA SHYAM PRASAD

disallowed in respect of Barotiwala Unit during the assessment year 2012-13. Accordingly, show cause notice under Section 263 of the Act was issued on 28.02.2016 by the CIT. After considering the reply filed by the assessee, order under Section 263 of the Act was passed by the CIT on 16.03.2016. Aggrieved by the order, the assessee filed an appeal

Commissioner of Income Tax-3, vs. M/s State Bank of Hyderabad

Bench: RAMESH RANGANATHAN,M.SATYANARAYANA MURTHY

2. Whether the Tribunal is justified in directing the assessing officer to recomputed the deduction under section 10A after reducing those expenses that were reduced only from export turnover, to reduce from the total turnover also, without appreciating that there is no provision in section 10A to the effect that such expenses should also be reduced from the total turnover

The Commissioner of Income Tax-III vs. Smt.Anitha Sanghi

Bench: RAMESH RANGANATHAN,M.SATYANARAYANA MURTHY

disallowed? (ii) Whether the provisions of the Section 14A of the Act r/w Rule 8D of the Income Tax Rules should be made applicable to all pending matters as the 4 same is clarificatory in nature in view of the consistent stands taken by the department? (iii) Whether the Tribunal was correct in holding that the estimated expenditure cannot

The Pr. Commissioner of Income-tax vs. D.L.V. Sridhar

Bench: D.V.S.S.SOMAYAJULU,RAMESH RANGANATHAN

2 of 9 non-STPI zone and hence its income was taxable. The other unit was located in a STPI zone in Gurgaon and its income was exempted under Section 10-A of the Act. The STPI unit was engaged in the business of development and support of its parent company in US/sister concerns worldwide as well as their customers

THE PR COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX vs. M/s. Value Labs

Bench: P.KESHAVA RAO,V RAMASUBRAMANIAN

disallowance of Rs.12,11,000/- under Section 10A of the Act on account of unbilled revenue without considering the fact that such unbilled revenue pertained to the immediately succeeding Assessment Year for which deduction under section 10A of the Act was not available. ii) Whether the Tribunal erred in law and on facts in rejecting the comparables selected

The Commissioner of Income Tax vs. M/s Kaveri Bar AND Restaurant,

Bench: ABHINAND KUMAR SHAVILI,V RAMASUBRAMANIAN

2 “For the Financial year 2009-10 relevant to the assessment year 2010-11, the assessee had debited a sum of Rs. 21,09,18,000/- to the P & L Account under the head “interest”. A part of the borrowed fund was utilized by the assessee in acquiring fixed assets under Capital Work in Progress (CWIP). The proportion of CWIP

THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-I, vs. AYYAPPA INFRA PROJECTS PVT LTD.,

Bench: RAMESH RANGANATHAN,M.SATYANARAYANA MURTHY

10A (2) of the Income Tax Act. The petitioner has placed reliance on certain circulars in support of the contention that the petitioner is also eligible for 100% deduction of Income Tax. WP(C) No. 673 of 2014 3 3. The petitioner had availed the services of an US Company called M/s. Points and Lines LLC, USA and also outsourced

The Commissioner of Income Tax IV vs. M/s. Nav Bharat Enterprises Limited

2) Whether on the facts and circumstances of the case, the tribunal is right in law in allowing the assessee's claim 3 of depreciation of Rs.17.06,58,039/- on software imported even though the assessing authority had rightly disallowed the expenditure under section 40(a)(i) of IT Act as the assessee had failed to comply with the provisions

Commissioner of Income Tax-V, vs. M/s.Sirveen Control Systems,

The appeals stand dismissed

2(15) of the Act and proviso to (3 of 4) [ITA-472/2011] Section 12AA which has been amended w.e.f. 1.4.2009 which has been introduced in the Finance Act w.e.f. 1.4.2012, will not apply in the present case inasmuch as all proceedings are for the financial year 2005-06, 2008-09 & 2009-10. However, it is true that

THE PRL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX [CENTRAL] HYDERABAD vs. M/S SREE NAGENDRA CONSTRUCTIONS, KHAMMAM

In the result, appeal stands dismissed

Bench: This

2. Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal is right in setting aside the disallowance of exchange fluctuation loss of Rs.3,63,47,099/- made by the assessing authority even when the CBDT Instruction No.3/2010 dated 23.03.2010 refers to market losses are notional and contingent and actual losses are allowable as non-speculative only