COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-TDA vs. M/S.IDEA CELLULAR LTD

Bench: SUJOY PAUL,NAMAVARAPU RAJESHWAR RAO

disallowance to impart visibility to the expenditure incurred for earning exempt income. Moreover, procedure for computation of disallowance has been

THE PR COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (CENTRAL) vs. BHAVANASI ANJANEYULU

Appeals are allowed in part

Bench: RAMESH RANGANATHAN,KONGARA VIJAYA LAKSHMI

disallowed the amounts paid to the employees through sub-contractors which were accounted under the total speed money payment, 10% disallowance

The Commissioner of Income Tax-IV vs. M/s Planet Online Pvt Ltd

Bench: Us Challenging Order Dated 17.04.2013, Passed By The Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Chandigarh Bench 'B'. Chandigarh (Hereinafter Referred To As 'The

disallowing certain exemptions claimed by NARESH KUMAR 2015.02.13 11:28 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document

Commissioner of Income Tax-2, vs. Agricultural Market Committee,

Bench: : The Hon’Ble Justice Surya Prakash Kesarwani & The Hon’Ble Justice Rajarshi Bharadwaj Date : 28Th February 2024. Appearance: Mr. J. P. Khaitan, Senior Advocate Mr. Somak Basu, Advocate … For The Appellant. Mr. Vipul Kundalia, Advocate Mr. Anurag Roy, Advocate Ms. Oindrila Ghosal, Advocate … For The Respondent. 1. Heard Sri J. P. Khaitan, Learned Senior Advocate Assisted By Sri Somak Basu, Learned Counsel For The Appellant Assessee & Vipul Kundalia, Learned Senior Standing Counsel For The Respondent. 2. This Appeal Was Admitted By This Court By Order Dated 19.08.2011 On Four Substantial Questions Of Law. Learned Counsel For The Appellant Has Stated That The Appellant Does Not Want To Press The Substantial

disallowance of Rs.44,03,373.68 Paise under Section 14A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 as interest expenditure incurred in relation

Commissioner of Income Tax-II vs. M/s Transport Corporation of India

Bench: CHALLA KODANDA RAM,C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY

disallowance of freight charges; 2) disallowance of commission/incentives paid to third parties; and 3) disallowance of en route expenditure. The Commissioner

M/s.Tata Teleservices Limited vs. Dy. Commissioner of Income Tax

Bench: SUJOY PAUL,NAMAVARAPU RAJESHWAR RAO

disallowed. The window for disallowance is indicated in Section 14A, and is only to the extent of disallowing expenditure “incurred

The Commissioner of Income Tax V vs. Smt. Ch. Uma

disallowed the claim for Rs.1,25,12,348/- towards quality loss, stating that the assessee had no role in the manufacture

Commissioner of Income Tax vs. M/s Ch.Veeraju AND co.

disallowed the claim for Rs.1,25,12,348/- towards quality loss, stating that the assessee had no role in the manufacture

Commissioner of Income Tax - VI vs. M/s. S.P. Steels

disallowed the claim for Rs.1,25,12,348/- towards quality loss, stating that the assessee had no role in the manufacture

The Commissioner of Income- Tax - V, vs. M/s. Krishnaveni Constructions,

Bench: RAMESH RANGANATHAN,M.SATYANARAYANA MURTHY

Disallowance towards R&D Rs.1,18,78,000/- 2. Disallowance of Foreign Exchange loss[FCNR] Rs.1,80,22,000/- 3. Disallowance

The Commissioner of Income Tax III, vs. M/s. Swagath Seeds Private Limited

Bench: RAMESH RANGANATHAN,M.SATYANARAYANA MURTHY

disallowance of Rs.39,86,424 when assessing authority has made disallowance considering that assessee along with two others, has jointly

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

In the result, these appeals fail and are

Bench: RAMESH RANGANATHAN,M.SEETHARAMA MURTI

disallowance of MTM losses even when the assessing authority the has rightly disallowed it as it is contingent in nature

The Commissioner of Income Tax - Central vs. M/s. Himagiri Biotech Pvt. Ltd.,

disallowance of interest free advance to DD Properties); the assessee was aggrieved by the disallowance itself. ITAT noted the contentions

The Prl Commissioner of Income Tax (Exemptions) vs. Institute of Development and Research in Banking Technology

Bench: ABHINAND KUMAR SHAVILI,V RAMASUBRAMANIAN

disallowed suo moto in the earlier years and the reversal of provisions in the assessment year in question when the same

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

Appeal is allowed

Bench: SANJAY KUMAR,GUDISEVA SHYAM PRASAD

disallowed. Accordingly, the claim of depreciation was disallowed. 13.1.2 I am inclined to disagree with the appellant's stand reproduced

The Commissioner of Income Tax-II vs. M/s.Pact Securities AND Financial Services Ltd

Bench: The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals), The Assessees Had Called In Question The Orders Of Assessing Officer (For Short ‘The A.O.’), Who, While Completing The Assessment For The Relevant Assessment Years Disallowed The Deduction Of The “Lease Equalization” Charges From The Lease Rental Income. The Disallowed Amounts By The Cit (Appeals) In These Appeals Are Of Rs.48,56,224/-, Rs,44,18,245/- & Rs.13,16,123/-.

disallowed the deduction of the “lease equalization” charges from the lease rental income. The disallowed amounts by the CIT (Appeals

The Commissioner of Income Tax-III, vs. M/S Sarada Projects Pvt. Ltd,

Appeals stand dismissed accordingly

disallowable on account of utilisation of fund for non-business purposes and if it exceeds, the proportionate disallowance can be made

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

disallowed as capital expenditure/loss as it had not been paid for business purposes. 5. By a reply dated 15th December