The Commissioner of Income Tax (Central) vs. Swapna Lahari Pvt Ltd.,

Bench: RAMESH RANGANATHAN,M.SATYANARAYANA MURTHY

set aside. Referring to the circulars issued by the CBDT as an interpretation of the CBDT on the statutory provisions, the learned Senior Counsel further urged that Ext.P1 was binding upon all authorities under the statute as it was based on the principle of diversion of income by an overriding title in favour of congregation. He further submitted that

Commissioner of Income Tax-II vs. Smt G Sailaja

Bench: RAMESH RANGANATHAN,M.SATYANARAYANA MURTHY

set aside. Referring to the circulars issued by the CBDT as an interpretation of the CBDT on the statutory provisions, the learned Senior Counsel further urged that Ext.P1 was binding upon all authorities under the statute as it was based on the principle of diversion of income by an overriding title in favour of congregation. He further submitted that

Commissioner of Income TAx-II, Hyderabad vs. M/s. Sri Balaji Bio MAss Power Pvt. Ltd.,

Bench: RAMESH RANGANATHAN,M.SATYANARAYANA MURTHY

set aside. Referring to the circulars issued by the CBDT as an interpretation of the CBDT on the statutory provisions, the learned Senior Counsel further urged that Ext.P1 was binding upon all authorities under the statute as it was based on the principle of diversion of income by an overriding title in favour of congregation. He further submitted that

The Commissioner of Income Tax -1 vs. Harmahendar Singh Bagga

Bench: RAMESH RANGANATHAN,M.SATYANARAYANA MURTHY

set aside. Referring to the circulars issued by the CBDT as an interpretation of the CBDT on the statutory provisions, the learned Senior Counsel further urged that Ext.P1 was binding upon all authorities under the statute as it was based on the principle of diversion of income by an overriding title in favour of congregation. He further submitted that

Commissioner of Income Tax-II, vs. The Sirpur Paper Mills Ltd.,

Bench: RAMESH RANGANATHAN,M.SATYANARAYANA MURTHY

set aside. Referring to the circulars issued by the CBDT as an interpretation of the CBDT on the statutory provisions, the learned Senior Counsel further urged that Ext.P1 was binding upon all authorities under the statute as it was based on the principle of diversion of income by an overriding title in favour of congregation. He further submitted that

Director of Income Tax ( International Taxation) vs. M/s. JDH International LLC,

Appeal is partly allowed with certain modification and the multiplier is reduced from 11

Bench: The Madurai Bench Of Madras High Court Date Of Reserved 25.10.2025 Date Of Pronounced 06.01.2026 Coram The Hon'Ble Ms.Justice R.Poornima Cma(Md)No.573 Of 2013 & Mp(Md)No.1 Of 2013 Oriental Insurance Company Ltd., South Main Veedhi, Thanjavur Town & Munsif, By Its Branch Manager : Appellant/2Nd Respondent Vs. 1.V.Veluthai 2.N.Sivakumar 3.N.Rajakumar : Respondents 1 To 3/Petitioners 4.Senthilkumar : 4Th Respondent/R1 Prayer:-Civil Miscellaneous Appeal Is Filed Under Section 173 Of The Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, Against The Award Dated 08/08/2002 & Made In Mcop No.518 Of 2002 On The File Of The Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Additional District Judge, Ftc-1, Thanjavur. For Appellant : Mr.E.Chandrasekaran For R1 To R3 : Mr.R.Giridharan (No Appearance) 1/12 Https://Www.Mhc.Tn.Gov.In/Judis

TDS 6839. Thereafter, he realised that the lorry bearing registration No.TDS 6839 was not involved in the accident. 14. His evidence was corroborated by the P.W.3, Nagarajan who accompanied the deceased clearly stated that on 06.05.2002, when he returning from Thiruvayaru along with deceased Nallakumar, the vehicle bearing registration No.TNL 3074 was driven by its driver in a rash

K.DEVENDER REDDY vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER

Bench: C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY,T.AMARNATH GOUD

setting aside the order of the Assessing Officer. CVNR,J & TA,J I.T.T.A.No.187 of 2005 29.11.2017 3 4. Section 273B of the Act envisages that no penalty shall be imposable on the person or the assessee, as the case may be, for any failure referred to in the various provisions mentioned therein, including Section 271B

Commissioner of Income Tax-III vs. Sigma Constructions

In the result, the appeal is dismissed

SET ASIDE THE APPELLATE ORDER DATED 17-05-2013 PASSED BY THE ITAT, ‘A’ BENCH, BANGALORE, AS SOUGHT FOR, IN THE RESPONDENT-ASSESSEE'S CASE, IN APPEAL PROCEEDINGS NO.ITA NO.5656/MUM/06 FOR ASSESSMENT YEAR 2003-04. THIS I.T.A. COMING ON FOR HEARING, THIS DAY, ALOK ARADHE J., DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: JUDGMENT Mr.Jeevan J.Neeralagi, learned counsel with Mr.E.I.Sanmathi, learned counsel

The Commissioner of Income Tax - IV vs. National Mineral Development Corporation Ltd.,

The appeal is dismissed

set aside by the Gurjarat High Court in CIT Vs. Sikanderkhan N. Tunvar and others, (2013) 357 ITR 312 and Calcutta High Court in CIT Vs. Cresent Export Syndicate, 2013(1) ITR OL1. Reference was also made to the judgment of the Apex Court in Mepco Industries Ltd. Vs. CIT, 319 ITR 208 recording that the issue being debatable, recourse

The Principal Commissioner of Income Tax vs. M/s.Midwest Granites Private Limited

Appeal stands dismissed accordingly

Bench: RAMESH RANGANATHAN,KONGARA VIJAYA LAKSHMI

TDS as required under Section 194H of the Act? 5. Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, Tribunal is right in law in setting aside the disallowances made under Section 36(1) (viia) and (viii) by relying upon its earlier orders passed for the assessment years 2009-10 to 2011-12 which have been challenged before

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

Bench: RAMESH RANGANATHAN,M.SATYANARAYANA MURTHY

TDS on the said amount. The assessing authority thereafter added this amount of Rs. 23,48,979/- to the total income and disallowed the expense which was debited in the Profit & Loss Account. Against Ext.P3 Order dated 17.12.2010 passed by the assessing authority, the petitioner filed a Revision Petition under section 264 of the Income Tax Act before

The Commissioner of Income Tax-I, vs. M/s. Prasad Film Laboratories Ltd.,

losses suffered by it. This is evident from letter dated 29th March, 2000. 40. The initiation of arbitration claim against the millers in the light of open sale notices and the correspondence, which is set out in the present case, clearly seems to be an erroneous step by the FCI against the miller and the documents on record shows clearly

THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX III, vs. M/S. SAVIJANA SEA FOODS PVT. LTD.,

Appeals of the Revenue are dismissed

Bench: J SREENIVAS RAO,ALOK ARADHE

losses in its return. The AO rejected the claim on the ground that only a portion of the expenditure related to the space already constructed could be allowed. It was held that since the Assessee had maintained the system of accounts on mercantile basis by adopting CCM, the revenue expenditure “normally, must be allowed in its entirety in the year

Commissioner of Income Tax, vs. M/s. Kokivenkateswara Reddy AND others,

Appeals of the Revenue are dismissed

Bench: V.V.S.RAO,RAMESH RANGANATHAN

losses in its return. The AO rejected the claim on the ground that only a portion of the expenditure related to the space already constructed could be allowed. It was held that since the Assessee had maintained the system of accounts on mercantile basis by adopting CCM, the revenue expenditure “normally, must be allowed in its entirety in the year

Commissioner of Income Tax-II, vs. M/s. Kura Homes Pvt. Ltd.,

Appeal stands allowed

Bench: RAMESH RANGANATHAN,M.SATYANARAYANA MURTHY

set aside. Learned counsel further argues that the learned Court below has failed to take into consideration the medical certificate and income tax acknowledgment produced by the appellant-claimant. Learned counsel further argues that though the claimant has suffered 50% disability but while awarding the compensation, the learned Court below has only considered 15% disability of the claimant, though

THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX IV vs. M/S. PRABHATH AGRI BIO TECH P. LTD.,

The appeals stand dismissed

Bench: P.SAM KOSHY,NARSING RAO NANDIKONDA

sets out the income which shall be chargeable to income- tax under the head ‗‗Salaries‘‘. Vide clause (b) thereof any salary paid or allowed to an employee in the previous year by or on behalf of an employer or a former employer though not due or before it became due to him is an income chargeable to tax under

The Commissioner of Income Tax -III vs. Sri T.C. Reddy

The appeal stands dismissed

loss of Rs.12,218.73 is reflected in the P& L a/c. Audit report & ITR-V of M/s. Mrigiya Electronics Industries P Ltd. is annexed with this order as Annexure-A.” 4.1. Taking into consideration the above factual position the AO held as under:- 16. The assessee has claimed expenditure under various heads. These expenditures have been charged to project work