The Commissioner of Income Tax-IV vs. M/s Pokarna Limited

The appeals are dismissed

Bench: P.SAM KOSHY,NARSING RAO NANDIKONDA

260A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 praying to (i) formulate the substantial questions of law stated therein, (ii) allow the appeal and set-aside the orders passed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Bangalore in I.T.A. No.41/Bang/2010 dated 31.05.2011 and confirm the order passed by the Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-11(3), Bangalore in the interest

The Commissioner of Income Tax IV vs. M/s Matrix Power Pvt Ltd.,

260A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter “the Act”) are as follows. M/s. Kei Industries Ltd., (hereinafter the “Assessee”) is a Public Limited company, engaged in the business of manufacturing cables, wires and stainless steel wires selling them to public sector companies and Electricity Board. It filed its return of ITA 386/2013 Page 2 income on 29.09.2008 declaring

PROGREESIVE CONSTRUCTIONS LIMITED vs. JT. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX

Bench: C.V. BHASKAR REDDY,UJJAL BHUYAN

260A of lncome Tax Act 1961 aggrieved by the order of the lncome Tax Appellate Tribunal, Hyderabad Beach, Hyderabad, dated 08-04-2005 in ITA No.26ZHydl99 (Assessment year 1990-91) preferred against the order of the Commissioner of lncome Tax (Appeals) lll Hyderabad dated 12-01-1999 in Appeal No.288/TrlDC.SR.1/ClT(A)lll98/99 preferred against the order of the deputy commissioner

AP. STATE SEEDS DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION, HYD. vs. THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-I, HYD.

Bench: C.V. BHASKAR REDDY,UJJAL BHUYAN

260A of the Income Tax Act, 196 1 (briefly, "the Act" hereinafter) liled by the assessee as the appellant against the order dated 23.l2.2OO5 passed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Hyderabad Ilench ts', Hyderabad (Tribunal) 1n I.T.A.No.44 1 lHvd/2OOO for the assessment year 1990-91. 3. From th: docket proceedings we find that on 26.06.2006 thr: appeal

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 Comissioner of Income Tax III, vs. Smt. Shanti Singh,

Bench: RAMESH RANGANATHAN,M.SATYANARAYANA MURTHY

depreciation of section 32;] g s f f s n d e r h n n d l e f r f r d n VARINDER SINGH 2024.11.14 14:36 I attest to the accuracy and authencity of this order/judgment ITA N 5. interpreted b considered b and relatable information a evidence whi officer has an relatable to s Therefore

The Commissioner of Income Tax-V vs. Smt.R.Amala Devi

Bench: RAMESH RANGANATHAN,M.SATYANARAYANA MURTHY

260A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 [“the Act”] arises out of an order dated 22nd July, 2009 passed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Amritsar [“ITAT”] in ITA No.478(ASR)/2008 titled M/s Reshi Construction Co. v. The Income Tax Officer, Ward 4, Srinagar, whereby the appeal of the appellant-assessee against the order of Commissioner, Income Tax (Appeals

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

260A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as the Act for short) has been preferred by the assessee. 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 14.11.2014 on the following substantial question of law: (i) Whether on the facts

J.ADITYA RAO, REP.BY GPA HOLDER vs. THE ASST.CODMMISSINER OF INCOME TAX,HYD

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

Section 260A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (the ‘Act’ in brevity) is directed against the consolidated order dated 29th October, 2003 passed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, “E” Bench, Kolkata (in short the ‘Tribunal’) in ITA No.1872(Kol) of 2002 for the assessment year 1994-95. The appeal was admitted to decide the following substantial question

COMM.OF INCOMETAX AP I HYD vs. M/S.DIAMOND HATCHERIES P.LTD HYD

260A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (in short, “the Act”) against the order dated 17.5.2000 passed by the income Tax appellate tribunal, Chandigarh Bench in ITA Nos.1263 and 1268/CHD/1992 for the assessment years 1987-88 and 1988-89, claiming following substantial GURBAX SINGH 2015.11.17 12:34 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document High Court Chandigarh

The Commissioner of Income tax III vs. M/s. Sree Sree Wines

Accordingly, the appeal (ITAT/75/2010) stands dismissed

Bench: RAMESH RANGANATHAN,M.SATYANARAYANA MURTHY

260A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (the ‘Act’ for brevity) is directed against the order dated 11th December, 2009 passed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, “A” Bench, in ITAT No.820/Kol/2008 and cross-objection No.48/Kol/2008 by the assessee for the assessment year 2005-06. The assessee has raised for the following substantial questions of law for consideration: i) Whether

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

In the result, appeal stands dismissed

Bench: This

260A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 [‘Act’ for short] challenging the order of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, “B” Bench, Bangalore ['Tribunal' for short] dated 18.03.2016 passed in ITA No.373/Bang/2015 relating to the assessment year 2010-11. 2. The appeal was admitted to consider the following substantial questions of law: “1. Whether on the facts and in the circumstances

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

In the result, the appeal fails

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 2001-02. The appeal was admitted by a bench of this Court vide order dated 17.07.2013 on the following substantial question of law: (i) Whether the tribunal

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

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 was admitted by a bench of this Court vide order dated 06.02.2012 on the following substantial questions of law: (i) Whether the tribunal

PR COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX vs. R SURYANARAYANA

In the result, the appeal filed by the revenue stands

Bench: RAMESH RANGANATHAN,KONGARA VIJAYA LAKSHMI

Section 260A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (the ‘Act’ in brevity) is directed against the order dated 16th August, 2017 passed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, “A” Bench, Kolkata (the ‘Tribunal’ in short) in ITA No.2041/Kol/2014 for the assessment year 2010-11. The revenue has raised the following substantial questions of law: (i) Whether on the facts

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

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

Commissioner of Income Tax (TDS), vs. M/s Country Club Inda Limited

260A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereafter ‗the Act‘) against orders passed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (hereafter ‗ITAT‘). ITA Nos. 669/2014, 671/2014 and 672/2014 are appeals preferred by the Assessee against a common ITA 666/2014 & Ors. Page 4 of 57 order dated 13th June, 2014 passed by the ITAT in ITA Nos. 1119, 1120 and 1121/Del/2010, which

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

260A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’, for short) have been filed by the revenue. The subject matter of I.T.A.No.370/2011 & I.T.A.No.37/2012 pertains to Assessment year 1996-97. Since, appeals have been decided by two different judgments, though they pertain to the same Assessment year and since, common questions of law arise