Commissioner of Income Tax, vs. Agricultural Market Committee,

In the result, the appeal (ITA/70/2011) is allowed to the extent indicated

Bench: : The Hon’Ble Justice T.S. Sivagnanam & The Hon’Ble Justice Hiranmay Bhattacharyya Date : 20Th March, 2023 Appearance : Mr. C. Bhaskaran, Adv. Ms. Swapna Das, Adv. …For The Appellant. Mr. Aryak Dutt, Adv. …For The Respondent.. The Court : - This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Under Section 260A Of The Income Tax Act (The Act) Is Directed Against The Order Dated September 30, 2009 Passed By The Income Tax Appellate Tribunal “B” Bench, Kolkata In Ita No.2486/Kol/2007 For The Assessment Year 2003-2004. The Appeal Was Admitted On 18.03.2011 On The Following Substantial Questions Of Law:- “1. Whether The Tribunal Below, While Interpreting Section 36(1)(Viia)(A) Of The Income-Tax Act, 1961, Committed Substantial Error Of Law In Holding That Deduction Under The First Proviso Was Alternative To That Under Sub-Clause (A) & That No Deduction Under The First Proviso Was Allowable If Deduction Had Been Allowed Under Sub-Clause (A) Thereby Rejecting The Appellant’S

1,2007 and Rule 8D inserted in the Income Tax Rules 1962 on March 24, 2008 was procedural and retrospective and were applicable for the assessment year 2003-2004? 3. Whether the Tribunal below committed substantial error of law in directing the Assessing Officer to decide disallowance under section 14A of the Income-tax Act as per Rules

The Commissioner of Income tax III, vs. Biraj Kavar Galada

The appeals are disposed of

Bench: RAMESH RANGANATHAN,M.SATYANARAYANA MURTHY

1)(vii) read with Section 36(2)(i) of the Act which contemplated treating the said amount as income of the 4 assessee especially when the same had not been written off as bad debts and the RBI guidelines could not prevail over the statutory provisions of the Act? 2. ITA No.100/2010 has also been filed by the revenue, which

The Commissioner of Income Tax -V, vs. M/S Secunderabad Club

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

14A was not worked out.” 3. In W.P.(C) 2795/2008 (for AY 2005-06) the allegations and grounds of reassessment notice were identical. The AO felt that mixing up of trading sales and absence of unit specific profit and loss accounts led to excess deduction under Section 80IB to the extent of ₹ 1,73,77,558/-. In this petition

PR COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX vs. R SURYANARAYANA

In the result, the appeal filed by the revenue stands

Bench: RAMESH RANGANATHAN,KONGARA VIJAYA LAKSHMI

depreciation and commission to foreign and Indian agents. The other issue was with regard to the restricting the disallowance under Section 14A of the Act read with Rule 8D of the Income Tax Rules, 1962. On the first three issues we find that the tribunal has made a thorough factual exercise and took note of the documents and details noted

Commissioner of Income Tax vs. Agricultural Market Committee

Bench: The Hon'Ble Mr. Justice Ravi Malimath

14A(1) of the Act which does not allow any such deduction? iii. Whether on the facts and circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was right in law in deleting the addition representing excess claim of bad debts written off under Section- 36(1)(vii) of the Act, exceeding the credit balance of the provision made under Section- 36(1

The Commissioner of Income Tax- V, vs. Dr. M.Venkataramana,

Bench: The Commissioner Of Income Tax. After Considering The Plus & Minus Points, The Appeal Was Finalised, Whereby Some Points Were

1. Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case- (a) the Club expenses being personal expenditure, the assessee is entitled to claim expenses under the Income Tax Act? (b) since the question being contested by the Revenue for the asst. years 1994-95 and 1995-96 and the same is pending consideration before this Hon'ble Court

The Commissioner of Income Tax IV vs. M/s. Nav Bharat Enterprises Limited

1) Whether on the facts and circumstances of the case, the tribunal is right in law in directing the assessing authority to set off the loss of the units in STP from other taxable business income even when the same is not permitted under provisions of IT Act? (2) Whether on the facts and circumstances of the case, the tribunal