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

Bench: RAMESH RANGANATHAN,KONGARA VIJAYA LAKSHMI

depreciation claimed on securities classified as ‘Held to Maturity’ and further held that the assessee had earned aggregate sum of Rs.68,65,73,177/-, which is exempt under various sub-Sections of Section 10 of the Act and disallowed the aforesaid amount in terms of Section 14A of the Act. A sum of Rs.3,43,28,658/- being 5% thereof

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

2) and (3) inserted in Section 14A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 with effect from April 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

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

14A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 read with Rule 8D of the Income Tax Rules, 1962 contrary to the provisions of the section? (iv) Whether on the facts and the circumstances of the case, the Learned Tribunal has erred in law as well as in fact and the impugned order is perverse in confirming the order

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

2. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case- ITA.259/10 5 (i) is not disallowance of depreciation on the enhanced cost of equipment due to foreign exchange fluctuations in accordance with law? (ii) is not increase in the liability only notional and not real and hence the Tribunal is right in law in interfering with the disallowance

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

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

2) Whether on the facts and circumstances of the case, the tribunal is right in law in allowing the assessee's claim 3 of depreciation of Rs.17.06,58,039/- on software imported even though the assessing authority had rightly disallowed the expenditure under section 40(a)(i) of IT Act as the assessee had failed to comply with the provisions