Andhra PRadesh Pradesh Fibres Limited vs. Assistant commissioner of Income Tax

In the result, the order passed by the

Bench: V.V.S.RAO,SANJAY KUMAR

depreciation 8 and notional interest, which would amount to setting aside the entire order of assessment. It was further held that since, there was no order to pass a fresh order of assessment, therefore, the order giving effect to the findings of the tribunal was not barred by limitation under Section 153(2A) of the Act. 5. The aforesaid order

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

Appeal is allowed

Bench: SANJAY KUMAR,GUDISEVA SHYAM PRASAD

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’ 3 2. The Tribunal considered 5 appeals together, 3 of which were filed

M/s. CCL Products (India) Ltd., vs. The Commissioner of Income Tax -1

In the result, the appeals are dismissed

Section 260-A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’, for short) have been filed by the revenue which were admitted by a Bench of this Court vide order dated 4 04.02.2013 in ITA No.280/2012 and 15.01.2013 in ITA No.279/2012 on the following substantial questions of law: a) Whether the Tribunal was correct in holding

Commissioner of IncomeTax-II, vs. M/S RK Hair Products Pvt Limited,

In the result, the appeals are dismissed

Section 260-A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’, for short) have been filed by the revenue which were admitted by a Bench of this Court vide order dated 4 04.02.2013 in ITA No.280/2012 and 15.01.2013 in ITA No.279/2012 on the following substantial questions of law: a) Whether the Tribunal was correct in holding

The Commissioner of Income Tax-III vs. Smt.Anitha Sanghi

Bench: RAMESH RANGANATHAN,M.SATYANARAYANA MURTHY

260-A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’, for short) have been filed by the revenue. ITA No.97/2010 was admitted by a bench of this court on the following substantial questions of law: (i) Whether the Tribunal was correct in holding that the estimation of expenditure in respect of administrative or financial cost

Commissioner of Income Tax [TDS] vs. The Executive Engineer

In the result, these appeals fail and are

Bench: RAMESH RANGANATHAN,M.SEETHARAMA MURTI

SECTION 260-A OF INCOME TAX ACT 1961, ARISING OUT OF ORDER DATED: 06/02/2015 PASSED IN ITA NO.898/BANG/2013, FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2007-2008, PRAYING TO FORMULATE THE SUBSTANTIAL QUESTIONS OF LAW AND ETC. THESE ITAs COMING ON FOR HEARING, THIS DAY, P.S.DINESH KUMAR J., DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: JUDGMENT ITAs No.350/2015 & 312/2015 are filed by the Revenue challenging order dated

PROGREESIVE CONSTRUCTIONS LIMITED vs. JT. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX

Bench: C.V. BHASKAR REDDY,UJJAL BHUYAN

260-A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (briefly 'the Act' hereinafter) has been prefened by the assessee against the order darcd 30.12.2004 passed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Hyderabad Bench 'A, Hlderabad (Tribunal) in I.T.A.No.262/Hyd/1999 for the assessment )€ar 1990-9t. 3. On 29.08.2005, the appeal was admitted on the following five 'questions

THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX - II vs. M/s. E.C.I. Engineering AND Construction Co. Ltd.,

In the result, the appeal is dismissed

Section 260-A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’, for short) has been preferred by the revenue which was admitted by a Bench of this Court vide order dated 30.05.2013 on the following substantial question of law: “Whether the Tribunal was correct in holding that the deduction

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

The appeals are dismissed

Bench: P.SAM KOSHY,SUDDALA CHALAPATHI RAO

depreciation. The rate of minimum tax was kept at a modest figure deeming 30 per cent of book profits as total income. This modest amount is likely to go down further with the downward revision of corporate tax rate to 35 per cent and abolition of surcharge. xxxx xxxx xxxx xxxx 45.4 The Act also inserts a new section 115JAA

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

Bench: RAMESH RANGANATHAN,KONGARA VIJAYA LAKSHMI

260-A 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 2007-08. The appeal was admitted by a Bench of this Court vide order dated 27.10.2017 on the following substantial questions of law: “1. Whether

THE STATE BANK OF HYD. vs. THE JT.COMMI.SPL.RANGE IV HYD.

Bench: C.V. BHASKAR REDDY,UJJAL BHUYAN

260-A of the lncome Tax Act, 1961 against the order dated 23-03-2001 passed by the lncome Tax Appellate Tribunal, Hyderabad Bench B Hyderabad in M.P. No. 2 / Hyderabad / 2001 in lnterest Tax Appeal No. 9 / Hyderabad / 1992 for the Assessment Year 1985-86 in M.P.No. 2 I Hydl 2001 preferred against the order of the Commissioner

COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-III, HYD vs. M/S. SUJANA METALS LTD, HYD

Bench: P.SAM KOSHY,NARSING RAO NANDIKONDA

260-A of the Act. 6. After hearing the counsel for the parties and going through the orders of the authorities below, we are of the opinion that the view taken by the CIT (A) as well as ITAT is without any blemish and in the facts of this case, it is rightly held by these two authorities that

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

The appeals are disposed of

Bench: RAMESH RANGANATHAN,M.SATYANARAYANA MURTHY

260-A OF I.T. ACT, 1961 ARISING OUT OF ORDER DATED 9-10-2009 PASSED IN ITA NO.1284/BANG/2007, FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2001-02, PRAYING TO FORMULATE THE SUBSTANTIAL QUESTIONS OF LAW STATED THEREIN. ALLOW THE APPEAL AND SET ASIDE THE ORDERS PASSED BY THE ITAT BANGALORE IN ITA NO.1284/BANG/2007 DATED 9-10-2009 3 AND CONFIRM THE ORDER

THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX III, vs. M/S. SAVIJANA SEA FOODS PVT. LTD.,

Appeals of the Revenue are dismissed

Bench: J SREENIVAS RAO,ALOK ARADHE

Section 260-A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 („Act‟) of which 1 is by the Assessee and 10 are by the Revenue. Apart from the facts being similar, the questions of law too are common to many of the appeals. They are accordingly disposed of by this common judgment. Background facts 2. The Assessee is engaged to the business

The Commissioner of Income Tax (Central) vs. Hetero Labs Ltd

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

Bench: RAMESH RANGANATHAN,M.SATYANARAYANA MURTHY

260-A OF I.T. ACT, 1961 ARISING OUT OF ORDER DATED 11.04.2014 PASSED IN ITA NO.589/BANG/2013 FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2007-08, PRAYING TO: (I) FORMULATE THE SUBSTANTIAL QUESTIONS OF LAW STATED ABOVE. (II) ALLOW THE APPEAL BY SETTING ASIDE THE ORDER OF THE ITAT IN ITA NO.589/BANG/2013 DATED 11-04-2014 ORDER 2 OF THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME

THE PRL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX [CENTRAL] HYDERABAD vs. M/S SREE NAGENDRA CONSTRUCTIONS, KHAMMAM

In the result, appeal stands dismissed

Bench: This

260-A OF INCOME TAX ACT 1961, ARISING OUT OF ORDER DATED 18.03.2016 PASSED IN ITA NO.373/BANG/2015, FOR - 2 - THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2010-2011 ANNEXURE-A. PRAYING TO DECIDE THE FOREGOING QUESTION OF LAW AND/OR SUCH OTHER QUESTIONS OF LAW AS MAY BE FORMULATED BY THE HON'BLE COURT AS DEEMED FIT & SET ASIDE THE APPELLATE ORDERS DATED

INCOME TAX BANGALORE vs. SHALINI BHUPAL

Appeal is dismissed

260-A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 are that for the period 01-01-1988 to 31-03-1989, relevant for the assessment year 1989-90, the return of income was filed by the respondent-assessee declaring Rs.53,93,390/- as income. The assessee manufactured and sold rubber patches for tyre, tubes, uniseals etc. By order dated

Commissioner of Income Tax (TDS) vs. M/s. Yashoda Super Speciality Hospital

In the result, the appeal fails

260-A OF I.T. ACT, 1961 ARISING OUT OF ORDER DATED 30.11.2012 PASSED IN ITA 2 NO.1240/BANG/2010 FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2001-02, PRAYING THAT THIS HON’BLE COURT MAY BE PLEASED TO: (I) FORMULATE THE SUBSTANTIAL QUESTIONS OF LAW STATED THEREIN. (II) ALLOW THE APPEAL AND SET ASIDE THE ORDERS PASSED BY THE ITAT, BANGALORE IN ITA NO.1240/BANG/2010 DATED