COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-III, HYD vs. M/S. SUJANA METALS LTD, HYD

Bench: P.SAM KOSHY,NARSING RAO NANDIKONDA

JUSTICE M.L. MEHTA 1. Whether Reporters of Local newspapers may be allowed to see the Judgment? 2. To be referred to the Reporter or not? 3. Whether the Judgment should be reported in the Digest? A.K. SIKRI, J. (ORAL) 1. Present appeal is filed under Section 260 (A) (1) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred

The Commissioner of Income Tax-IV vs. M/s Pokarna Limited

The appeals are dismissed

Bench: P.SAM KOSHY,NARSING RAO NANDIKONDA

justice and equity. These I.T.As. coming on for hearing, this day, N.Kumar J., delivered the following: JUDGMENT All these appeals are taken up for consideration together as the common question of law is involved and therefore, they are disposed of by this common order. However, for proper appreciation of the question of law involved, the facts in ITA No.374/2011

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

JUSTICE SANJEEV NARULA ITA 210/2003 & connected matters Page 5 of 36 J U D G M E N T Dr. S. Muralidhar, J.: 1. These are 11 appeals under Section 260-A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 („Act‟) of which 1 is by the Assessee and 10 are by the Revenue. Apart from the facts being similar, the questions

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

Bench: The Learned

JUSTICE TEJAS KARIA VIBHU BAKHRU, J. (Oral) 1. The Revenue has filed the present appeal under Section 260A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 [Act] impugning an order dated 25.09.2024 [impugned order] passed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal [ITAT] in ITA No.3426/Del/2019 in respect of Assessment Year [AY] 2011-12. 2. The impugned order is a common order passed

SMT. SHANTHA VIDYASAGAR ANNAM vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-4(2) HYDERABAD

In the result, the orders dated 09

Bench: J SREENIVAS RAO,ALOK ARADHE

Justice Alok Aradhe) Mr. S.Ravi, learned Senior Counsel re presenting M/ s. R. S.Associate s for the appellant. Mr. J.V.Prasad, learned Senior Standing Counsel lor Income Tax Department fbr the respondent. 2. This Appea-l under Section 260A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act) has been fired by thr: assessee against the order. dated

Kuchipudi Krishna Kishore vs. The DCIT

Accordingly the appeals deserves to be allowed by setting aside the impugned

Bench: P.SAM KOSHY,N.TUKARAMJI

Justice N. Tukaramji) These appeals are filed under Section 260-4 of the lncome Tax Act, 1961 (for short,'the Act') by the Assessee assailing the common order dated 22 12.2006 of lncome Tax Appellate Tribunal, Bench 'B', Hyderabad in l.T.A.Nos.g29: g28 and 827;lHyderabad/2005 for the Assessment years (Ay), 2002_03, 2001 -02, and 1 999-2000 respectively

COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-II vs. GLAND PHARMA LTD.,

In the result, the appeal (ITAT/96/2017) fails and stands

Bench: P.SAM KOSHY,NARSING RAO NANDIKONDA

JUSTICE HIRANMAY BHATTACHARYYA Date : 29th November, 2021. The Court : This appeal by the revenue filed under Section 260A of the Income Tax Act (the ‘Act’ in brevity) is directed against the order dated 3rd February, 2016 passed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, B-Bench, Kolkata (the ‘Tribunal’) in ITA No.94/Kol/2012 for the assessment year 2005-06. The revenue

Principal Commissioner of Income Tax vs. Sri Nama Nageshwar Rao

Bench: P.SAM KOSHY,LAXMI NARAYANA ALISHETTY

JUSTICE SANJEEV NARULA ITA 23/2021 and connected matters Page 3 of 11 JUDGMENT [VIA VIDEO CONFERENCING] SANJEEV NARULA, J (ORAL): 1. The present appeals under Section 260A of the Income Tax Act [hereinafter referred to as the ‘Act’] are directed against the common order dated 30th July, 2019 [hereinafter referred to as the ‘impugned order’] passed by the Income

The Commissioner of Income Tax-III vs. M/s. Sanghi Textiles Limited

The appeal is allowed setting aside

Bench: P.SAM KOSHY,SUDDALA CHALAPATHI RAO

gains advantage by the spending of the said amount, it should be looked upon as revenue receipt and not capital receipt. 12. Learned senior standing counsel has also placed reliance on the case of commtssioner of Income Tqx u. ponni sugars qnd chemicats Ltd3 wherein the Hon,lcle Supreme court has reiterated the principre of 'purpose test'laid down

M/S.P.SATYANARAYANA AND SONS vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD 1[9], HYDERABAD

Appeals are allowed

Bench: P.SAM KOSHY,NARSING RAO NANDIKONDA

justice and equity. 12 ITA NO 211/2008 BETWEEN 1. The Commissioner of Income Tax C.R.Building, Queens Road, Bangalore. 2. The Income Tax Officer Ward-19(2) C.R.Building, Queens Road, Bangalore. ...Appellants (By Sri.K.V.Aravind, Advocate) AND: CGI Information Systems and Management Consultants Pvt Ltd 38/1, Naganathapura Singasandra Post Bangalore – 560 068. ... Respondent (By Sri.G.Sarangan, Sr.Adv for Sri.Balram.R.Rao, Adv) ITA filed u/S.260-A

M/S NATIONAL ACADEMY OF CONSTRUCTION vs. ASST. DIRECTOR OF INCOME TAX

Bench: P.SAM KOSHY,LAXMI NARAYANA ALISHETTY

Justice P.Sam Koshg) We have heard Sri S.Ravi, learned counsel for the appellant and Ms.K.Mamata, learned standing counsel for the respondent. 1. Since all these appeals are of the same assessee and the grounds of appeal being also same, the question of law decided also being the same, all these connected matters are taken up and decided by this common

The Commissioner of Income-tax(Exemptions) vs. WarangalWarangal Diocese Society

The appeals are dismissed, along with pending

Bench: P.SAM KOSHY,N.TUKARAMJI

JUSTICE HARISH VAIDYANATHAN SHANKAR JUDGMENT SUBRAMONIUM PRASAD, J. Digitally Signed By:HARIOM SINGH KIRMOLIYA Signing Date:11.07.2025 20:17:18 Signature Not Verified FAO(OS) (COMM) 268/2019 etc. Page 2 of 15 1. The present appeals have been filed by the Appellant under Section 37 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 ("the Act") challenging the judgment dated 17.07.2019 (“Impugned

M/s Durga Granites, vs. The Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle - 1,

Bench: P.SAM KOSHY,LAXMI NARAYANA ALISHETTY

gain as General Manager (HR&A) "Bidyut Unnayan Bhaban", Plot No. 3/C, LA Block, Sector-III, P.O. - Salt Lake City, P.S.- Bidhannagar, District- Kolkata, West Bengal, PIN – 700106 ..........Petitioner. -Versus- 1. The State of Jharkhand, through its Secretary, Department of Mines and Geology, having its office at Yojna Bhawan, P.O. and P.S. Doranda, District Ranchi (Jharkhand