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

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 8D of the Income- tax Rules 1962 without arriving at any finding that the claims of the appellant as regards expenditure incurred in relation to tax free interest income

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

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

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 of section 195 while making payments to the vendors? (3) Whether on the facts and circumstances of the case, the tribunal is right

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

depreciation on account of variation in foreign exchange? 3. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case- a) The Tribunal is justified and right in law in interfering with the disallowance made by the Assessing Officer invoking section 14A

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

The appeals are disposed of

Bench: RAMESH RANGANATHAN,M.SATYANARAYANA MURTHY

14A of the Act read with Rule 8D of the Income Tax Rules should be made applicable to all pending matters as the same is clarifactory in nature in view of the consistent stands taken by the department? (iii) Whether the tribunal was correct in holding that the estimated expenditure cannot be treated as book profit under 5 Section 115JA

Commissioner of Income Tax vs. Agricultural Market Committee

Bench: The Hon'Ble Mr. Justice Ravi Malimath

3 ii. Whether on the facts and circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was right in law in deleting the addition representing expenditure relating to earning of exempt income ignoring the provisions of Section 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