The Commissioner of Income Tax(Central) vs. M/s.Madhu Enterprises

Bench: The Learned

153A read with Section 143(3) of the Act restricting the deduction under Section 54F to ₹30 crores, as against ₹90 crores claimed by the Assessee. 7. The Assessee had deposited the consideration in the capital gains account in two tranches – ₹30 crores on 28.07.2011 and ₹60 crores on 29.07.2011. The AO noted that the Assessee had paid a certain

The Pr. Commissioner of Income-Tax-1 vs. M/s. New River Software System Pvt Ltd.,

The appeals are dismissed

Bench: RAMESH RANGANATHAN,M.SATYANARAYANA MURTHY

153A of the Act, whereby inter alia additions of various amounts were made under Section 68 of the Act for Assessment Years (AYs) 2002-03, 2003-04, 2005-06 and 2007-08. These amounts, being primarily towards monies received from various companies as well as disallowances

The Commissioner of Income Tax-I vs. Adaptec [India] Ltd

The appeals are dismissed

153A of the Act, whereby inter alia additions of various amounts were made under Section 68 of the Act for Assessment Years (AYs) 2002-03, 2003-04, 2005-06 and 2007-08. These amounts, being primarily towards monies received from various companies as well as disallowances

THE PR COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (CENTRAL) vs. BHAVANASI ANJANEYULU

Appeals are allowed in part

Bench: RAMESH RANGANATHAN,KONGARA VIJAYA LAKSHMI

disallowance to the extent of 10% is just and proper without adjudicating upon the challenge made by the Revenue in respect of the allowance of speed money charges to the extent of 90% i.e., over and above Rs.26/- per ton. Indeed the appeals filed by the assessee are pending consideration before the jurisdictional Tribunal. In the Miscellaneous Petitions filed

COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-II vs. M/S.TRANSPORT CORPORATION OF INDIA

In the result, we set aside the assessment orders, except to

Bench: P.SAM KOSHY,LAXMI NARAYANA ALISHETTY

disallowed depreciation I.T.Appeal No.133/14 & con.cases. -2- claimed. 2. The appeals filed before the Commissioner of Income- tax were disposed of deleting addition of undisclosed investment and depreciation claimed by the assessee was also allowed. In all other respects, the assessment orders were confirmed. 3. The Revenue and the assessee filed appeals challenging the orders passed by the first appellate authority