The Commissioner of Income Tax-II, vs. M/S Gulf Oil Corporation Pvt. Ltd.,

Bench: RAMESH RANGANATHAN,M.SATYANARAYANA MURTHY

carry forward loss,  therefore, no set off of the same is given.” 9.4. Referring to the above facts which are not in  dispute, it was submitted that the Tribunal  has brushed aside the relevant facts and has  relied upon the irrelevant facts to hold that  the   assessee   is   not   entitled   to   claim   the  loss suffered by it. The Tribunal

The Commissioner of Income Tax - VI vs. M/s. Manikanta Iron AND Hardware

Bench: RAMESH RANGANATHAN,M.SATYANARAYANA MURTHY

carry forward loss,  therefore, no set off of the same is given.” 9.4. Referring to the above facts which are not in  dispute, it was submitted that the Tribunal  has brushed aside the relevant facts and has  relied upon the irrelevant facts to hold that  the   assessee   is   not   entitled   to   claim   the  loss suffered by it. The Tribunal

The Commissioner of Income Tax [Central] vs. Smt P Sujana

The appeal stands disposed of as indicated above

Bench: CHALLA KODANDA RAM,G.CHANDRAIAH

Capital gains” and claims that the loss or any part thereof should be carried forward under sub-section (1) of section

Commissioner of Income Tax, Guntur vs. Agricultural Market Committee, Sattenapalli

In the result, the order of the income tax appellate tribunal

Bench: GODA RAGHURAM,M.S.RAMACHANDRA RAO

carried forward or set off where such loss relates to any of the relevant assessment years ending before the 1st day of April 2001. Section 70(1) Save as otherwise provided in this act, where the net result for any assessment year in respect of any source falling under any 12 head of income, other than “Capital gains

The Commissioner of Income Tax-I vs. Ascend Telecom Infrastructure Private Limited

Bench: RAMESH RANGANATHAN,M.SATYANARAYANA MURTHY

carrying forward of the losses for being set off against the income of the charitable trust for the present Assessment Year, the controversy is covered by the judgment in Commissioner of Income Tax (Exemptions) and another .vs. Ohio University Christ College rendered on 17.07.2018 in ITA.No.312/2016 and ITA No.313/2016, in which this Court held as under

The Commissioner of Income Tax - IV vs. M/s. Mekins Agro Product (P) Ltd.

carried forward for subsequent years for application for charitable purposes. The appeal is disposed of as above by answering the question in favour ofthe Revenue but by granting the reliefto the assessee as above." 5. As is clear from paragraph 6 above, the Kerala High Court has relied upon the decision of the Supreme Court in the case of Escorts

Commissioner of Income Tax, Guntur. vs. Agricultural Market Committee, Kangiri.

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

loss temporarily and not permanently will not, necessarily at least, alter the character of the object. I n Andhra Chamber of Commerce, the Supreme Court considered the question as to whether the income of Andhra Chamber of Commerce is exempt under Section 4(3)(i) of the Income Tax Act, 1922. While observing that the legislature had used language

Commissioner of Income Tax, vs. Agricultural Market Committee,

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

loss temporarily and not permanently will not, necessarily at least, alter the character of the object. I n Andhra Chamber of Commerce, the Supreme Court considered the question as to whether the income of Andhra Chamber of Commerce is exempt under Section 4(3)(i) of the Income Tax Act, 1922. While observing that the legislature had used language

The Commissioner of Income Tax vs. M.Venkata Krishna Mohan

Bench: RAMESH RANGANATHAN,M.SATYANARAYANA MURTHY

forwarding and packaging expenses nad freight charges. (b). Unless otherwise specified by the Proprietor, the royality hereunder shall be paid to Hilton Rubbers Limited, S-21, Green Park Extension, i_e “” Delhi 110016, in India Rupees at half yearly intervals, within 60 days at the end of each calendar half year. 7(a). The User recognizes the Proprietor‟s title

The Commissioner of Income Tax IV vs. Shri Raaj Kumar Jain

Capital Case No.2667 of 2017. (ix) Vide order dated 8.2.2007, the accused was remanded to police custody till 22.2.2007 in case pertaining to victim 'D'. (x) Again on 22.2.2007 an application for police remand was moved by CBI IO MS Phartyal stating as under:- “That custodial interrogation of accused Surender Koli is necessary in the proper and just investigation

PR COMMR OF INCOME TAX-2, HYDERABAD vs. K RAVINDER REDDY, HYDERABAD

Bench: RAMESH RANGANATHAN,KONGARA VIJAYA LAKSHMI

carried out pursuant to the approval by the RBI. The liaison office has five employees in all. The South Korean based company is a trader in semi-conductor components manufactured by various companies across the world. In the course of the said survey and investigation, the authorities have recorded the statement of one Sri V. Natarajan, the country manager

M/s. Maruthi Movies vs. Income Tax Officer

Bench: This Court & Making The Same A Rule Of Court, Alongwith Decree Against Respondents Awarding Rs.5,35,920/- Paid By The Petitioner To The Arbitrator As Their Share Of Fees As Per Order Dated 21.12.2010. 2. Respondent No.1 Has Filed Its Objections To The Award Under Section 30 & 33 Of The Act In Form Of I.A. No.9067/2011. Respondent No.2 Has Also Filed Its Objections To The Award.

forwarded a list of other properties which may be considered by the respondents as alternative accommodation, including one property in Defence Colony, which was one of the preferred locality. 16. The counsel for the respondent no.2 was unable to show any response given to this letter by the respondents. Therefore, the finding of CS(OS) No.486/2011 Page 7 the Arbitrator