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

The appeals are dismissed

Bench: P.SAM KOSHY,NARSING RAO NANDIKONDA

260A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 praying to (i) formulate the substantial questions of law stated therein, (ii) allow the appeal and set-aside the orders passed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Bangalore in I.T.A. No.41/Bang/2010 dated 31.05.2011 and confirm the order passed by the Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-11(3), Bangalore in the interest

K.V.D.PRASAD RAO vs. THE JT.COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX

Bench: C.V. BHASKAR REDDY,UJJAL BHUYAN

260A of the Act were as [ol[ous: (A) \X,hether the iTAl' hrs contctlv intelpreted the provisions oi Section -28(ii) of the Income Tax Act, 1961? (B) \X.4rether the ITAT \\'i1s cor-recr in hoiding that receipt o[ Rs 6.6 crores by rhe r espondent- assessee as non-competitive fee ',r'rs .r cepit:rl receipt under Section

Commissioner of Income Tax-II vs. Energy Solutions International India Pvt Ltd.,

Bench: J. UMA DEVI,V RAMASUBRAMANIAN

capital expenditure or personal expenses of the assessee) laid out or expended wholly and exclusively for the purpose of the business or profession shall be allowed in computing the income chargeable under the head “Profits and gains of business or profession…”. The text of this sub section shows its building blocks such as: ‘expenditure’, ‘wholly and exclusively’ and ‘incurred

The Commissioner of Income Tax IV vs. M/s Matrix Power Pvt Ltd.,

260A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter “the Act”) are as follows. M/s. Kei Industries Ltd., (hereinafter the “Assessee”) is a Public Limited company, engaged in the business of manufacturing cables, wires and stainless steel wires selling them to public sector companies and Electricity Board. It filed its return of ITA 386/2013 Page 2 income on 29.09.2008 declaring

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

Bench: The Learned

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 by the learned ITAT in ITA No.3426/Del/2019 and ITA No.5892/Del/2015. However, as stated above, the present appeal

Alugubelli Nagabhushana Rao vs. The Income Tax Officer,

The Appeals stand dismissed

Bench: C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY,M.S.K.JAISWAL

260A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (‘Act’ for short). 2. The substantial questions of law framed in the memorandum of appeal arising out of the common order passed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Panaji Bench, Panaji, relating to the different assesses- respondents herein for the assessment year 2013-14 are identical, as such these appeals are disposed

The Commissioner of Income Tax-II vs. The Andhra Bank Employees Co.Operative Bank Limited

In the result, for the above reasons, these appeals fail and

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

260A of the Act is barred. To that extent, the Senior Counsel is correct and is well supported by the ratio in S.P.Mansinghka (P) Ltd. The said case arose under Section 55 of the 1922 Act which is the precursor of Section 256(1) of the Act. Ruling on the scope of the said provision, the Division Bench

Commissioner of Income Tax-II, vs. M/S The A.P.Mahesh Coop. Urban Bank Ltd,

In the result, for the above reasons, these appeals fail and

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

260A of the Act is barred. To that extent, the Senior Counsel is correct and is well supported by the ratio in S.P.Mansinghka (P) Ltd. The said case arose under Section 55 of the 1922 Act which is the precursor of Section 256(1) of the Act. Ruling on the scope of the said provision, the Division Bench

COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-II, HYDERABAD vs. M/s. The A.P.Vardhaman(Mahila)Cooperative Urban

In the result, for the above reasons, these appeals fail and

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

260A of the Act is barred. To that extent, the Senior Counsel is correct and is well supported by the ratio in S.P.Mansinghka (P) Ltd. The said case arose under Section 55 of the 1922 Act which is the precursor of Section 256(1) of the Act. Ruling on the scope of the said provision, the Division Bench

Commissioner of Income Tax -II vs. The Agrasen Coop. Urban Bank Ltd.,

In the result, for the above reasons, these appeals fail and

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

260A of the Act is barred. To that extent, the Senior Counsel is correct and is well supported by the ratio in S.P.Mansinghka (P) Ltd. The said case arose under Section 55 of the 1922 Act which is the precursor of Section 256(1) of the Act. Ruling on the scope of the said provision, the Division Bench

Sri Natakari Gopal vs. Income Tax Appellate Tribunal and 2 Others

Bench: : The Hon’Ble Justice T.S. Sivagnanam & The Hon’Ble Justice Hiranmay Bhattacharyya Date : 3Rd January, 2023. Appearance : Mr. Tilak Mita, Adv. ..For Appellant Mr. Pranit Bag , Adv. Mr. A. K. Mishra, Adv. Mr. Debdatta Saha, Adv. …For Respondent Re: Ga/1/2022 The Court:- Heard Mr. Tilak Mitra, Learned Advocate For The Appellant & Mr. Pranit Bag, Learned Advocate For The Respondent. There Is A Delay Of 1126 Days In Filing The Appeal. Though The Reasons Given In The Affidavit Are Not Convincing The Issues Involved In The Appeal Had Been Decided By This Court In Earlier Matters, This Court Exercises Discretion & Condone The Delay In Filing The Appeal. Accordingly, The Application Is Allowed.

section 260A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 [the Act] is directed against the order dated 15.2.2019 passed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal “B” Bench, Kolkata [Tribunal] in ITA No.2467/Kol/2017 for the assessment year 2014-15 the revenue has raised the following substantial question of law for consideration : 2 1. Whether the learned Income Tax Appellate Tribunal erred

The Commissioner of Income Tax (Exemptions0 vs. Kalinga Cultural Trust

In the result, we do not find any

Bench: ANIS,SANJAY KUMAR

capital gain earned. It is urged that since, the tribunal has failed to determine the core issue with regard to colorable devise adopted by the 15 assessee, to evade tax, therefore, the matter be remitted to the tribunal for decision afresh in accordance with law. In support of aforesaid submissions, the reliance is placed on decision of Supreme Court

Principal Commissioner of Income Tax-5 vs. M/s. VBC Industries Limited

In the result, we do not find any

Bench: RAMESH RANGANATHAN,M.SATYANARAYANA MURTHY

capital gain earned. It is urged that since, the tribunal has failed to determine the core issue with regard to colorable devise adopted by the 15 assessee, to evade tax, therefore, the matter be remitted to the tribunal for decision afresh in accordance with law. In support of aforesaid submissions, the reliance is placed on decision of Supreme Court

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

Section 260A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act) has been fired by thr: assessee against the order. dated 09.O6.2006 passed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Hyderabad Bench A,, Hyderabad (hereinafter referred to as 'the Appellate Tribunar). The subject matter of the appeal pertains to assessment year l_gg7 _gg. The appeal

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

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

260A of the Income Tax Act, 1961, (the IT Act, for brevity), by the Commissioner of Income Tax. These twelve appeals are against the common order passed by Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Visakhapatnam Bench. Therefore, it is convenient to dispose them by a common Judgment. FACTUAL BACKGROUND The following brief fact of the matter is culled out from I.T.T.A.No

Commissioner of Income Tax, vs. Agricultural Market Committee,

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

260A of the Income Tax Act, 1961, (the IT Act, for brevity), by the Commissioner of Income Tax. These twelve appeals are against the common order passed by Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Visakhapatnam Bench. Therefore, it is convenient to dispose them by a common Judgment. FACTUAL BACKGROUND The following brief fact of the matter is culled out from I.T.T.A.No

Commissioner of Income Tax-III vs. V.Ramachandra Rao

In the result, we do not find any merit in the

Bench: CHALLA KODANDA RAM,G.CHANDRAIAH

260A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as the Act for short) has been preferred by the assessee. The subject matter of the appeal pertains to the Assessment year 2009-10. The appeal was admitted by a bench of this Court vide order dated 03.08.2015 on the following substantial question of law: (i) Whether, on the facts

The Commissioner of Income Tax vs. M/s.Sri Jayalakshmi Power Corporation Limited

Bench: RAMESH RANGANATHAN,M.SATYANARAYANA MURTHY

Section 260A of the Income Tax Act (the ‘Act’ in brevity) is directed against the order dated 23rd April, 2010 passed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, A - Bench, Kolkata (the ‘Tribunal’) in ITA No.1391/Kol/2009 for the assessment year 2005-06. This appeal was admitted on 13th September, 2010 on the following substantial questions of law: 2 “(i) Whether