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

Bench: SUJOY PAUL,NAMAVARAPU RAJESHWAR RAO

disallowance was necessary. 5. The Tribunal, vide impugned order, has upheld the findings recorded by the Commission of Income Tax (Appeals). 6. This appeal has no merit as Assessing Officer had not recorded necessary and required satisfaction, in terms of sub section (2) to Section 14A of the Act for invoking Rule 8D making the addition

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

Bench: SUJOY PAUL,NAMAVARAPU RAJESHWAR RAO

addition was deleted. 4. The facts that emerge from the record show that the respondent/assessee in the period in issue i.e., Financial Year (FY) 2007-08 [AY 2008-09] had earned exempt income amounting to Rs.35,347/-. 4.1 Against the said income, the respondent/assessee had made a suo motu disallowance

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

additions which included the interest paid 8 on loans used for investment in tax-free bonds. The interest so disallowed and added to income

Commissioner of Income Tax, vs. M/s Polisetty Somasundaram,

disallowed and added to the income of the assessee.” Against the said order, the assessee-respondent filed an appeal before the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), who vide order dated 20.07.2009, deleted the additions

The Commissioner of Income Tax vs. M/s Kaveri Bar AND Restaurant,

Bench: ABHINAND KUMAR SHAVILI,V RAMASUBRAMANIAN

Disallowance of the sum of Rs. 8.98 crore only u/s 36(i)(iii) instead of Rs. 13.04 crore in the assessment order has resulted in escapement of income amount of Rs. 4.06 crore (13.04 crore less 8.98 crore). In view of the same I have reasons to believe that income to the tune of Rs. 4.06 crore has escaped assessment

COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX vs. M/S K.VENKATESWARA RAO

Bench: V.V.S.RAO,RAMESH RANGANATHAN

income which were processed under section 143(3) after making various additions and disallowances. Being aggrieved by the additions and disallowances

THE PRINCIPAL COMMR OF INCOME TAX-II vs. L.G.TRINADHA RAO

The appeal is allowed and the order passed by the

Bench: RAMESH RANGANATHAN,KONGARA VIJAYA LAKSHMI

additional income only after search of premises of another assessee indicating that certain expenditure claimed by the assessee was disallowed

Commissioner of Income tax-V, vs. M/s. INTRACK INC,

ADDITIONAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, RANGE-3, BANGALORE. IN I.T.A.NO.595/2013 BETWEEN: 1. THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX C R BUILDING QUEENS ROAD BANGALORE 2. THE ASST. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-3(1) C R BUILDING QUEENS ROAD BANGALORE … APPELLANTS (BY SRI KAMALADHAR G, ADV.) AND: 9 SMT. VIMALA S.W. WARAD PROP: M/S MAHENDRA ROAD LINES NO.13, RANGAPPA REDDY

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

income. In view of the said finding, the disallowance of the expenditure on stores and spares by the assessing officer was correct. The omission of the assessing officer to make the said addition

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

income. In view of the said finding, the disallowance of the expenditure on stores and spares by the assessing officer was correct. The omission of the assessing officer to make the said addition

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

income. In view of the said finding, the disallowance of the expenditure on stores and spares by the assessing officer was correct. The omission of the assessing officer to make the said addition

PROGREESIVE CONSTRUCTIONS LIMITED vs. JT. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX

Bench: C.V. BHASKAR REDDY,UJJAL BHUYAN

income chargeable to t;rx which lrad escaped assessment and u'hich comes to the notice o1 the assessing officer subsequendy. 1 l. Before r s, leamed counsel for the assessee strenuor.sly argued that it ,s not open to the assessing officer to make iresh additions or de ete disallowances

The Pr. Commissioner of Income-Tax-1 vs. M/s. New River Software System Pvt Ltd.,

The appeals are dismissed

Bench: RAMESH RANGANATHAN,M.SATYANARAYANA MURTHY

Income Tax (Appeals), [CIT(A)] had disallowed the additional documents and the appeal. In doing so he relied upon the decision

The Commissioner of Income Tax-I vs. Adaptec [India] Ltd

The appeals are dismissed

Income Tax (Appeals), [CIT(A)] had disallowed the additional documents and the appeal. In doing so he relied upon the decision

Commissioner of Income Tax-III, vs. M/s Sree Rayalaseema Green Energy Limited,

disallowed and added to the income of the assessee. Since I am satisfied that the assessee has furnished inaccurate particulars of its income, penalty proceedings under section 271(1)(c) are being initiated separately.” 7. This is the entire discussion on the said addition

The Director of Income Tax, (Exemptions) vs. Royal Education Society

In the result, the appeal is disposed of

Bench: ANIS,SANJAY KUMAR

income of the assessee at Rs.51,71,70,670/- and made following additions: (a) disallowance of contributions made to funds

The Prl Commissioner of Income Tax [Central] vs. G Sanjay Chowdhary

Bench: CHALLA KODANDA RAM,G.CHANDRAIAH

income. The Assessing Officer made an addition of about ` 2.16 crores on account of disallowance of 50% of the expenses

The Commissioner of Income Tax IV vs. Margadarshi Chit Fund Pvt. Ltd.,

The appeal is dismissed

disallowed. Further Rs.56,650/- incurred on purchase of UPS held to be capitalized and depreciation was ordered to be charged on it. Rs.7650/- were added to the income of the assessee on account of telephone expenses, as the assessee admitted the expenditure incurred on account of telephones installed at residences. Further addition