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

The appeals are dismissed

Bench: P.SAM KOSHY,NARSING RAO NANDIKONDA

14, items A to E. Sub-section (2) of Section 56 specifically states that the incomes shall be chargeable to income-tax under the head Income from other sources. Clause (ii) of Section 56(2) provides that income from machinery, plant or furniture belonging to the assessee and let on hire, if the income is not chargeable to income

M/S. VJIL CONSULTING LTD., vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD -3(2), HYDERABAD

Appeal is allowed

Bench: P.SAM KOSHY,S.CHALAPATHI RAO

2] on accounts which refers to transferring of the capital gain amount of Rs.51,71,819.20/- to capital reserve account instead of crediting to profit and loss account. Thus, it is argued that the books of accounts maintained by the assessee is not as per the standard of accounting to be maintained in accordance with the Companies Act as disclosed

THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOMEE TAX-III vs. M/S.V.B.C.FERRO ALLOYS LTD

THE APPEAL IS DISMISSED

Bench: SUJOY PAUL,NAMAVARAPU RAJESHWAR RAO

gains of an infrastntcture capital fund or an infrastructure capital compang from inuestments made before the 7"t daA of June, 1998 bg utay of shares or long-terrn finance in ang enterprise carrying on th.e business of deueloping, maintaining and operating ang infrastructure facilitg shalL not be included and the prouisions of this clause as it stood immediately before

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

gain accrued to the assessee in order to attra(:t Sections 45 and Section 4g of the Act. In support of the aforesaid submissions, reliance has been placed on decision of thr: Supreme Court in Seshasayee Steels private Limited vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Chennai r and decisions on Principal Commissioner of Income Tax, Kolkata_l vs. Infinity Infotech

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

Bench: The Learned

2 of 10 Act. 3. The subject matter of controversy in the appeals before the learned ITAT centres around the Assessee’s claim for deduction under Section 54F of the Act. 4. The Assessee filed her return of income for AY 2011-12 on 31.12.2011, declaring an income of ₹70,87,301/-. The Assessee also claimed a deduction

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

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 of law too are common to many of the appeals. They are accordingly disposed of by this common judgment. Background facts 2. The Assessee is engaged to the business

Kuchipudi Krishna Kishore vs. The DCIT

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

Bench: P.SAM KOSHY,N.TUKARAMJI

2 3 . ....t. L'l \i ' ,.,,,r . rncome. Further observed that, the deduction under Section 57(iii) of the Act under the head of income from ,other sources, does not make the capital expenditure exclusively spent for the purpose of earning income and the expenditure craimed must be of the nature relating to earning of income, with a reflection

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

Bench: P.SAM KOSHY,LAXMI NARAYANA ALISHETTY

14 i:7ii PSK,J & LNA,J ITTA_500 2006 and batclr It was the further contention of the learned counsel for the appellant that the appellants were entitled to accumulat e 2}o/o of their income which in the instant case comes to around Rs.2.2 crores and it is only an amount of Rs. 1.5 crores which has been

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

Appeals are allowed

Bench: P.SAM KOSHY,NARSING RAO NANDIKONDA

14. Section 9 provides for the income deemed to accrue or arise in India. It reads as under: “9(1) The following incomes shall be deemed to accrue or arise in India- (i) all income accruing or arising, whether directly or indirectly, through or from any business connection in India, or through or from any property in India, or through

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

The appeals are dismissed, along with pending

Bench: P.SAM KOSHY,N.TUKARAMJI

Capital Territory of Delhi were banned due to which there was a shortage of the mining materials and the rates of various raw materials were hiked by the mine lease holders. Another letter was sent by the Respondent to Appellant in the same regard showing the current and previous market rates and requesting the Appellant to increase the rates accordingly

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

section 260A of the tncome Tax Act, 1961 aggrieved by the order dated 19-6-2009 passed in lrA.No.346t{ydto4 on the file of the tncome Tax Appellate Tribunal, Hyderabad bench ,A,, Hyderabad. Between: The commissioner of rncome Tax-ilr, r.T. Towers, A.c. Guards, Masab rank, Hyderabad AND ...Appeltant M/s. Sanghirextiles Limited, 4-3-3s2, Bank street, Koti

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

Bench: P.SAM KOSHY,LAXMI NARAYANA ALISHETTY

2. The Secretary, Road Construction Department, Government of Jharkhand, having its office at Jharkhand Mantralaya (Project Building), PO. Dhurwa, P.S. Jagannathpur, District Ranchi-834002 (Jharkhand), 3. The Director, Mines Directorate, Department of Mines and Geology, Government of Jharkhand, having its office at Yojna 2025:JHHC:29619-DB 52 Bhawan, P.O. and P.S. Doranda, District Ranchi-8334002 (Jharkhand), ........... Respondents. ----- With