M.Y.Maharshi vs. The Asst. Commissioner of Income-Tax

In the result, we do not find

1) on 10.09.2007. Subsequently, the case of the assessee was selected for scrutiny and notice under Section 143(2) of the Act was issued on 05.10.2007. During the relevant financial year, it was observed that the assessee had international transactions exceeding Rs.15 Crores. Therefore, with prior approval of the Commissioner of Income Tax 5 (Appeals), Bangalore-I, Bangalore, a reference

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

Bench: RAMESH RANGANATHAN,M.SATYANARAYANA MURTHY

10B are concerned, besides the nature of unit being different Free Trade Zone Unit (S.10A) and 100% EOU Unit (S.10B), the substance of these Date of Judgment 23-07-2018 I.T.A.No.77 /2016 Pr.Commissioner of Income Tax & Anr., Vs. M/s. GE Medical Systems India Pvt. Ltd., 9/19 provisions is the same, the difference is only in the categories of assessee

Vodafone Idea Limited vs. The Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax

The appeal is disposed of with liberty as prayed for by the learned

Bench: P.SAM KOSHY,N.TUKARAMJI

Section 260-A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (for short, ‘the Act’) questioning the correctness and legality of order dated 11.3.2021 passed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, ‘C’ Bench, Bengaluru (for short, ‘Appellate Authority’) in ITA.No.536/Bang/2017 for the assessment year 2010-11, raising the following substantial questions of law: “1. Whether on the facts and circumstances

J Anjaneya Sharma vs. Commissioner of Income Tax-V

10B[1][e] of the Rules?” Date of Judgment 12-07-2018, ITA Nos.508/2013 & 329/2014 M/s. Business Process Outsourcing India Pvt. Ltd., Vs. Income Tax Officer. 4/10 4. Learned Counsel for the Appellant-Assessee does not press substantial question No.4. 5. Submission is taken on record. 6. The learned Tribunal, after discussing the rival contentions of both the Appellants-Assessee

The commissioner of Income Tax IV vs. M/s Lanco Kondapalli Power (P) Ltd

10b Mahendrakumar Mafatlal Shah, both of Mumbai Indian Inhabitants, having present address at A/1003 Gokul Vrindavan, Shantilal Modi X Road No.2, Kandivali (West), Mumbai 400 067. 11a Atul Shakaralal Shah 11b Alpa Atul Shah, both adults, of Mumbai, Indian Inhabitants, having present address at B/104 Shanti Apartment No.1, Mathuradas Ext Road, Kandivali (West), Mumbai 400 067. 12a Hemant Zaverilal Shah

Commissioner of Income Tax, vs. M/s Mohan Milk Line Private Limited,

Bench: RAMESH RANGANATHAN,M.SATYANARAYANA MURTHY

1) Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal is right in law in adopting high turnover and brand value criteria for excluding Infosys Technologies as a comparable in absence of turnover criteria in Rule 10B of the Income Tax Rules and also when the sale of the turnover and profit margins are not linked