M/s.V.R.Farms Pvt Ltd vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax

The appeals are dismissed

Bench: P.SAM KOSHY,SUDDALA CHALAPATHI RAO

natural justice and justification for not making payment do not arise for determination in cases where interest is leviable under section 234B and section 234C.‖ 13. It must be pointed out that this decision was in the context of section 115J, the question being – ―Whether interest under section 234B and section 234C is chargeable even in a case where

COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-II vs. M/S.TRANSPORT CORPORATION OF INDIA

In the result, we set aside the assessment orders, except to

Bench: P.SAM KOSHY,LAXMI NARAYANA ALISHETTY

JUSTICE ANIL K.NARENDRAN FRIDAY, THE 19TH DAY OF SEPTEMBER 2014/28TH BHADRA, 1936 ITA.No. 133 of 2014 () ----------------------- AGAINST THE ORDER IN ITA 40/COCH/2013 OF I.T.A.TRIBUNAL,COCHIN BENCH DATED 31-01-2014 APPELLANT/RESPONDENT/ASSESSEE: -------------------------------------------------------- M/S. PODIKUNJU MUSALIAR MEMORIAL EDUCATIONAL& CHARITABLE TRUST CHANDANATHOPE, KOLLAM. BY ADV. SRI.S.ARUN RAJ RESPONDENT/APPELLANT/REVENUE: ------------------------------------------------------ COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX AAYAKAR BHAVAN, KOWDIAR, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. SRI P.K.R.MENON(SR.) SRI.JOSE JOSEPH

Dr.V.Suryanarayana Reddy vs. The Asst. Commissioner of Income Tax

Justice Rajarshi Bharadwaj WPTT 14 of 2013 Gouranga Parbati Tea Co. Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Agricultural Income Tax Officer & Ors. For the petitioner : Mr. Boudhayan Bhattacharyya Ms. Stuti Bansal Ms. Rinki Saha Mr. S.S. Prasad For the respondents : Md. T.M. Siddiqui, AGP Mr. Tanoy Chakraborty Mr. Saptak Sanyal Heard on : 18.12.2023, 20.12.2023, 09.02.2024 29.02.2024 & 04.03.2024 Judgement on : 05.03.2024 Surya Prakash Kesarwani

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

Commissioner of Income Tax, vs. Dr. T.Ravi Kumar,

Bench: : The Hon’Ble Justice Surya Prakash Kesarwani & The Hon’Ble Justice Rajarshi Bharadwaj Date : 10Th April, 2024. Appearance: Mr. J. P. Khaitan, Senior Advocate Mr. Sanjay Bhowmick, Advocate Ms. Swapna Das, Advocate … For The Appellant. Ms. Smita Das De, Advocate … For The Respondent. 1. Heard Sri J. P. Khaitan, Learned Senior Advocate Assisted By Sri Sanjay Bhowmick, Learned Counsel For The Appellant/Assessee & Ms. Smita Das De, Learned Senior Standing Counsel For The Respondent. 2. The Assessment Years Involved In The Present Appeal Are Assessment Year 1999-2000 & Assessment Year 2000-01. By Order Dated 16.08.2012, This Appeal Was Admitted On The Following Substantial Questions Of Law :-

justice deserves to be preferred for the other side cannot claim to have vested rights for injustice being done. The case of appellant is also supported by the CBDT Circular No.14 dated 11/04/1995, wherein it was observed that officers of the department must not take advantage of ignorance of an assessee as to his rights. It is one of their

Commissioenr of Income Tax vs. Dr. T. Ravi Kumar

JUSTICE VIJAY KUMAR VYAS Judgment 16/05/2017 1. By way of this appeal, the appellant has challenged the judgment and order of the Tribunal whereby the Tribunal has dismissed the appeal of the department and penalty has been imposed. 2. This court while admitting the appeal framed the following substantial questions of law:- “(i) Whether under the facts

COMM OF INCOME TAX, HYD vs. M/S. BALAN NATURAL FOOD PRIVATE LTD., HYD

Bench: RAMESH RANGANATHAN,KONGARA VIJAYA LAKSHMI

JUSTICE H.T.NARENDRA PRASAD I.T.A. NO.140 OF 2016 BETWEEN: 1. THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, LTU, JSS TOWER’S, BSK III STAGE, BANGALORE-560085. 2. THE ADDL. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, LTU UNIT, JSS TOWER’S, BSK III STAGE, BANGALORE-560 085. …APPELLANTS (BY SRI K.V.ARAVIND, ADV.) AND: M/S. VIJAYA BANK, HO: CENTRAL ACCOUNTS DEPT. 41/2, M.G.ROAD, BANGALORE-560 001. …RESPONDENT

Commissioner of Income Tax, Rajahmundry vs. M/s. Kakinada Coop. Town Bank LTd., Kakinada

Bench: The Court Is: “Whether, The Shares Invested Through A Portfolio Management

JUSTICE S. RAVINDRA BHAT % 1. This is an appeal filed against the order of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (“ITAT”) which upheld the action of the Revenue in treating the profit made by the appellant on sale of equity shares under the Portfolio-Management Schemes (“PMS”) as business income and not as capital gains, as claimed by the appellant

COMM.OF INCOME TAX,AP -I,HYDERABAD vs. M/S.LAKSHMI BUILIDERS,HYD

The appeal is hereby allowed

Bench: C.V. BHASKAR REDDY,UJJAL BHUYAN

JUSTICE S.RAVINDRA BHAT (OPEN COURT) 1. The following questions of law arise for consideration: (1) Whether the Tribunal was justified in holding that the sum of Rs. 5 lacs was capital in nature and was not revenue expenditure that could properly be deducted? (2) Whether the Tribunal was justified in holding that no depreciation

The Commissioner of Income Tax-III vs. M/s Deccan Chronicle

Bench: C.V. BHASKAR REDDY,UJJAL BHUYAN

Justice IJjjal Bhuya,tt Heard IVir. B.Narasimhra Sarma, leurrL,:,1 Standing Counsel, Inc, >me Tax Department for the appellartr. 2. T,ris appeal has been preferred by tl.r: Revenue as the appellant under Section 26AA of the Income 1';rx r\ct, 196 I (briefly refer:ed to hereinafter as the Act'), assailing the legality and ''alidity of the order

The Commissioner of Income Tax- I vs. M/s. Avon Organics Limited

Bench: GODA RAGHURAM,M.S.RAMACHANDRA RAO

Justice Rowlatt was considering, viz., "commencing of the business." It seems to us, that the expression "setting up" means, as is defined in the Oxford English Dictionary, "to place on foot" or "to establish", and in contradistinction to "commence". The distinction is this that when a business is established and is ready to commence business then it can be said

Commissioner of IncomeTax-2, vs. Mr. Mustafa Alam Khan,

Appeal is allowed

Bench: SANJAY KUMAR,GUDISEVA SHYAM PRASAD

JUSTICE C.M. POONACHA) The present appeal is filed by the assessee under Section 260-A of the Income Tax Act, 19611 challenging the common order dated 8.9.2016 passed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Bangalore Bench “A”, Bangalore2, in ITA Nos.671/Bang/2011, 672/Bang/2011 and 1211/Bang/2015. 1 Hereinafter referred to as the ‘IT Act’ 2 Hereinafter referred to as the ‘Tribunal

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

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

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

JUSTICE AND EQUITY. THIS ITA COMING ON FOR HEARING, THIS DAY, ALOK ARADHE J., DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: JUDGMENT This appeal under Section 260A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as the Act for short) has been preferred by the revenue. The subject matter of the appeal pertains to the Assessment year 2000-01. The appeal was admitted

Commissioner of Income Tax vs. Agricultural Market Committee

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

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

JUSTICE AND EQUITY. THIS ITA COMING ON FOR FINAL HEARING, THIS DAY, ALOK ARADHE J., DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: JUDGMENT This appeal under Section 260A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as the Act for short) has been preferred by the revenue. The subject matter of the appeal pertains to the Assessment year 2003-04. The appeal

Commissioner of Income Tax vs. Sri P.Sarveswara Rao

Appeals are partly allowed, in view of the

Bench: RAMESH RANGANATHAN,M.SATYANARAYANA MURTHY

JUSTICE S. RAVINDRA BHAT % 1. The following common question arises in these batch of nine appeals arising from orders of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (“ITAT”) hereafter: “Whether the ITAT was correct in law in holding that the amount received by the assessee by way of exemption of sales tax payments was not a trading receipt but was a capital

Commissioner of Income Tax vs. Agricultural Market Committee

Bench: The Hon'Ble Mr. Justice Ravi Malimath

JUSTICE AND EQUITY. ***** THIS INCOME TAX APPEAL COMING ON FOR HEARING THIS DAY, RAVI MALIMATH J., DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: JUDGMENT The appeal was admitted to consider the following substantial questions of law: “i. Whether on the facts and circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was correct in holding that depreciation on valuation of investment portfolio is allowable by treating

Commissioner of Income Tax vs. Agricultural Market Committee

Bench: The Hon'Ble Mr. Justice Ravi Malimath

JUSTICE AND EQUITY. ***** THIS INCOME TAX APPEAL COMING ON FOR HEARING THIS DAY, RAVI MALIMATH J., DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: JUDGMENT The appeal was admitted to consider the following two substantial questions of law: “i. Whether on the facts and circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was correct in holding that depreciation on valuation of investment portfolio is allowable by treating

SIEMENS AG.,FEDERAL REPUBLIC OF GERMANY vs. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX

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

JUSTICE AMARINDER SINGH GREWAL Present:- Mr. Divya Suri, Advocate for the petitioner Mr. Saurabh Kapoor, Advocate for respondent-Income Tax Department *** JAGMOHAN BANSAL, J. (ORAL) 1. The appellant through instant appeal under Sectio 260 A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (for short ‘1961 Act’) is seeking setting aside of order dated 23.09.2004 passed by Income Tax Appellate Tribunal