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

Appeal is allowed

Bench: SANJAY KUMAR,GUDISEVA SHYAM PRASAD

disallowing the claim for deduction of the cost of trademarks over a three year period when the said trademarks had admittedly

AD-AGE OUTDOOR ADVERTISING P LTD., HYDERABAD. vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONEER OF INCOME TAX, HYDERABAD.

Bench: T.VINOD KUMAR,M.S.RAMACHANDRA RAO

deduction of an amount of Rs. 45,00,000/- was disallowed and resultantly an amount of Rs. 45,00,000/- was added

The Commissioner of Incoe Tax III, vs. Raj Breeders and Hatcheries (PVT) Liited,

Bench: RAMESH RANGANATHAN,M.SATYANARAYANA MURTHY

deduction of an amount of Rs. 45,00,000/- was disallowed and resultantly an amount of Rs. 45,00,000/- was added

Commissioner of income tax, vs. M/s. R.K. Palace,

Bench: RAMESH RANGANATHAN,M.SATYANARAYANA MURTHY

deduction of an amount of Rs. 45,00,000/- was disallowed and resultantly an amount of Rs. 45,00,000/- was added

Commissioner of Income Tax-I vs. Agricultural Market Committee

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

deduction of an amount of Rs. 45,00,000/- was disallowed and resultantly an amount of Rs. 45,00,000/- was added

Commissioner of Income Tax vs. Dr. T.Ravi Kumar

The appeal is disposed of

deduction was allowed by the Assessing Officer vide order dated 18.03.2011. The order of the Assessing Officer was found to be erroneous and 4 prejudicial to the interest of the revenue. Therefore, a show cause notice dated 18.10.2011 under Section 263 of the Act was issued by the Director of Income Tax (Exemption), Bangalore to the assessee proposing to disallow

THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX-IV, HYDERABAD vs. M/S NAVA BHARAT VENTURES LTD., HYD

The appeal is dismissed

Bench: P.SAM KOSHY,NARSING RAO NANDIKONDA

disallowed the entire claim of deduction under Section 80-lA of the Act, 19,61. Aggrieved by the order of the Ar;sessing

The commissioner of Income Tax-I vs. M/s Bhagyanagar Studios

The appeals are disposed of in the manner indicated above

Bench: RAMESH RANGANATHAN,M.SATYANARAYANA MURTHY

disallowance of deduction of `24,59,300/- made by the AO u/s 10B of the Income Tax Act, 1961 ignoring

Commissioner of Income Tax-III vs. V.Ramachandra Rao

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

Bench: CHALLA KODANDA RAM,G.CHANDRAIAH

disallowed an amount of Rs.50 Lakhs from out of the deduction of Rs.1 Crore claimed under Section 54EC of the Act and disallowed

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 to exempt of income from tax free bonds ? 2) Whether the learned Tribunal below committed substantial error of law in upholding the deduction

Commissioner of Income Tax vs. Sri. B. Venkatesam,

The appeal stands disposed of with no order as to

deduction was disallowed as the additional customs duty (which was the statutory liability of the importers- sellers) was disputed by the importers

THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-III vs. M/S. SOMA ENTERPRISES LTD

The appeal is disposed off accordingly

Bench: The Hon'Ble Mr. Justice Ravi Malimath

deduction of any amount twice, while arriving at the income of the concern. Accordingly, the depreciation claimed by the assessee in respect of the buildings amounting to Rs.4,92,10,011/- which was already allowed in the earlier assessment years, was disallowed

THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-IV, HYDERABAD vs. M/S NAVA BHARAT VENTURES LTD., HYDERABAD

Bench: P.SAM KOSHY,NARSING RAO NANDIKONDA

deduction 196 1 was disallowed as assessee under Section 80-IA of the Rs.37,34,55,899 l- in resPect

The Commissioner of Income tax - III, vs. M/s. Namala Estates,

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

Bench: RAMESH RANGANATHAN,M.SATYANARAYANA MURTHY

disallowed a portion of deduction claimed under Section 80IB of the Act to the extent of Rs.8,54,05,964/-. The Assessing

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

deduction of Rs.52 lakhs claimed under the head “Sales Tax Written Off” cannot be treated as an expenditure for the year 2004-05 since the dispute had not attained finality. The assessing officer also disallowed

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

deduction of Rs.52 lakhs claimed under the head “Sales Tax Written Off” cannot be treated as an expenditure for the year 2004-05 since the dispute had not attained finality. The assessing officer also disallowed

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

deduction of Rs.52 lakhs claimed under the head “Sales Tax Written Off” cannot be treated as an expenditure for the year 2004-05 since the dispute had not attained finality. The assessing officer also disallowed

Commissioner of Income Tax - II vs. M/s. Healthware Private Limited

In the result, the order passed by the tribunal

disallowance of Rs.141,84,44,170/- being deduction claimed under section 80IA(4)(iv)(c) of the Act on the facts