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

Bench: RAMESH RANGANATHAN,M.SATYANARAYANA MURTHY

exempted dividend does not form part of income, the assessee is not entitled to disallowance of proportionate expenses as required

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

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

disallowed for the purpose of computing exemption under Section 11 of the Act. 5. So far as the disallowance under

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

The appeal is disposed of

Exemption), Bangalore to the assessee proposing to disallow deduction of Rs.57.39 Crores under Section 80IB(10) of the Act. The assessee

PRL COMMR OF INCOME TAX, TIRUPATI, CHITTOOR DIST vs. V DWARAKANATH REDDY, CHITTOOR

The appeals are hereby dismissed

Bench: RAMESH RANGANATHAN,KONGARA VIJAYA LAKSHMI

disallowance of exemption. 74. It cannot possibly be suggested that the Government of Punjab formed the trusts under the Punjab

PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-I vs. A.V. V. VARAPRASAD

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

disallow the claim of exemption under Sections 54EC and 54F, after giving opportunity of being heard to the assessee. This

The Commissioner of the Income Tax IV vs. Satya Prasad Anagani,

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

exempt income has to be disallowed under Section14A of the Act. 4 3. Thereupon, the Commissioner of Income Tax issued

Commissioner of Income Tax-III., vs. Smt. Chirala Nivedita Reddy

disallowed certain amounts including the exemption claimed under Section 10(29) of the Act, as well as certain categories of income

The Principal Commissioner of Income Tax vs. M/s.Midwest Granites Private Limited

Appeal stands dismissed accordingly

Bench: RAMESH RANGANATHAN,KONGARA VIJAYA LAKSHMI

disallowance of expenditure incurred on earning exempt income under Section 14A read with Rule 8D of the Act by following

The Commissioner of Income Tax-I vs. M/s Andhra Bank

In the result, the appeal is dismissed

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

exempt from tax even when the assessing authority rightly disallowed the disallowed Rs.7.58 crores under section 14A read with Rule

PR COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX vs. R SURYANARAYANA

In the result, the appeal filed by the revenue stands

Bench: RAMESH RANGANATHAN,KONGARA VIJAYA LAKSHMI

disallowance under the said provision cannot exceed the exempt income. We find no error in approach of the tribunal. Thus

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

disallowed, as the income of this unit was exempt from tax. In response, the Assessee furnished its detailed submissions, which

PRL COMMISSOER OF INCOME TAX vs. SRISURAM VENKATESWARA REDDY

In the result, appeal filed by the revenue fails and is

Bench: RAMESH RANGANATHAN,KONGARA VIJAYA LAKSHMI

exempt income even when the assessing authority rightly made disallowances as conditions for making such disallowances were satisfied and assessee

THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX vs. K.VENKATESWARLU

Accordingly they are dismissed

Bench: V.ESWARAIAH,K.G.SHANKAR

exemption under Section 10 (14) of the Act was disallowed, against which, the application filed under Section 154 of Act before

Sri Rajesh Rawtani vs. The Income Tax Officer

The appeals are disposed off in the above

Bench: P.SAM KOSHY,SUDDALA CHALAPATHI RAO

exempt. This being so, we are of the view that the disallowance as made by the AO and as confirmed

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

Bench: RAMESH RANGANATHAN,KONGARA VIJAYA LAKSHMI

disallowed the depreciation claimed on securities classified as ‘Held to Maturity’ and further held that the assessee had earned aggregate sum of Rs.68,65,73,177/-, which is exempt

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

exemption under Section 10B(1) of the Act. 10. The Assessing Officer while disallowing the deduction was swayed by the facts