THE ASST COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX vs. SRI K.C.K.A.GUPTA

The Appeal is dismissed

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

justice or without application of mind also falls in the same category of erroneous orders. Dealing with the phrase “prejudicial to the interests of the Revenue”, the Supreme Court held that it is not an expression of art and that understood in its ordinary meaning it is of wide import and is not confined to mere loss of tax. That

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

In the result, these appeals fail and are

Bench: RAMESH RANGANATHAN,M.SEETHARAMA MURTI

JUSTICE C.M. POONACHA I.T.A NO. 350 OF 2015 C/W I.T.A NO. 309 OF 2015 I.T.A NO. 312 OF 2015 IN I.T.A NO. 350 OF 2015 BETWEEN: 1. THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX C.R. BUILDING QUEENS ROAD BANGALORE 2. THE ASST. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX CIRCLE-11(4) RASHTROTHANA BHAVAN NRUPATHUNGA ROAD BANGALORE - 560 001. …APPELLANTS (BY SHRI. K.V. ARAVIND, ADVOCATE

COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-II vs. M/S.TRANSPORT CORPORATION OF INDIA

In the result, we set aside the assessment orders, except to

Bench: P.SAM KOSHY,LAXMI NARAYANA ALISHETTY

JUSTICE ANIL K.NARENDRAN FRIDAY, THE 19TH DAY OF SEPTEMBER 2014/28TH BHADRA, 1936 ITA.No. 133 of 2014 () ----------------------- AGAINST THE ORDER IN ITA 40/COCH/2013 OF I.T.A.TRIBUNAL,COCHIN BENCH DATED 31-01-2014 APPELLANT/RESPONDENT/ASSESSEE: -------------------------------------------------------- M/S. PODIKUNJU MUSALIAR MEMORIAL EDUCATIONAL& CHARITABLE TRUST CHANDANATHOPE, KOLLAM. BY ADV. SRI.S.ARUN RAJ RESPONDENT/APPELLANT/REVENUE: ------------------------------------------------------ COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX AAYAKAR BHAVAN, KOWDIAR, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. SRI P.K.R.MENON(SR.) SRI.JOSE JOSEPH

NAVA BHARAT FERRO ALLOYS LTD. vs. THE DY.COMMI.OF INCOME TAX HYD.

justice or without application of mind also falls in the same category of erroneous orders. Dealing with the phrase “prejudicial to the interests of the Revenue”, the CVNR, J & CKR, J RC 18/2001 9 Supreme Court held that it is not an expression of art and that understood in its ordinary meaning it is of wide import

Andhra Pradesh Fibres Limited, vs. Addl. Commissioner of Income Tax,

justice. Accordingly, we cancel the order passed by the CIT (A) u/s 263 of the Act. The ground of appeal raised by the assessee is thus allowed. 6. In this appeal filed by CIT against the above order of the ITAT, following substantial question of law has been proposed:- “Whether, on the facts and circumstances of the case

COMM.OF INCOME TAX,AP -I,HYDERABAD vs. M/S.LAKSHMI BUILIDERS,HYD

The appeal is hereby allowed

Bench: C.V. BHASKAR REDDY,UJJAL BHUYAN

JUSTICE S.RAVINDRA BHAT (OPEN COURT) 1. The following questions of law arise for consideration: (1) Whether the Tribunal was justified in holding that the sum of Rs. 5 lacs was capital in nature and was not revenue expenditure that could properly be deducted? (2) Whether the Tribunal was justified in holding that no depreciation was allowable

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

Bench: RAMESH RANGANATHAN,M.SATYANARAYANA MURTHY

JUSTICE AND EQUITY & ETC. THESE I.T.As. COMING ON FOR HEARING, THIS DAY, ALOK ARADHE J., DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: JUDGMENT These appeals under Section 260-A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’, for short) have been filed by the revenue. ITA No.97/2010 was admitted by a bench of this court on the following substantial questions

M/s. CCL Products (India)Ltd. vs. The Commissioner of Income Tax I

In the result, the appeal is disposed of

Bench: The Authorities & There Was No Need To Remand The Matter Under The Facts & Circumstances Of The Case?

JUSTICE AND EQUITY. THIS ITA COMING ON FOR FINAL HEARING, THIS DAY, ALOK ARADHE J., DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: JUDGMENT This appeal under Section 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 2006-07. The appeal

The Commissioner of Incoem Tax vs. Sri sarvaraya Sugars Ltd.,

Appeal stands disposed of

Bench: The Tribunal.”

nature of expenses, it will be reasonable to restrict the disallowances at Rs.1,10,000/- for assessment year 1994-95 and Rs.1,25,000/- for the assessment year 1995-96.” The Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) has allowed the appeal completely by passing a reasoned order in 4 favour of the appellant. However, the Department has preferred second appeal before

Commissioner of Income Tax vs. Agricultural Market Committee

In the result, both the substantial questions

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

JUSTICE AND EQUITY. - - - THIS ITA COMING ON FOR ADMISSION, THIS DAY, ALOK ARADHE J., DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: JUDGMENT This appeal under Section 260A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’, for short) has been filed by the revenue. The subject matter of the appeal pertains to Assessment year 2001-02. The appeal was admitted

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

Appeals are allowed in part

Bench: RAMESH RANGANATHAN,KONGARA VIJAYA LAKSHMI

justice. Against the said appellate order, both the assessee as well as the Revenue had preferred appeals before the Tribunal. The Tribunal while deciding the appeals of the Revenue, concluded that the disallowance to the extent of 10% is just and proper without adjudicating upon the challenge made by the Revenue in respect of the allowance of speed money charges

COMMR OF INCOME TAX AP-I HYD vs. M/S.LANCO CONSTRUCTIONS LTD. HYD

The Appeal is dismissed

nature of the expenditure claimed. It is further held by the learned Tribunal that, these disallowances were made on the basis of the entries in the books of account regularly maintained by the assessee in its regular course of business and the finalized statements of account, such as profit and loss account etc., and even the returns filed

COMMISSIONER OF INCOMETA VIZ vs. M/S RAJAM EXTRACTIONS PVT

The appeal is partly allowed

Bench: GODA RAGHURAM,M.S.RAMACHANDRA RAO

JUSTICE S. RAVINDRA BHAT (OPEN COURT) % 1. The following questions of law were framed in the present appeal by order dated 12.05.2000. (i) Whether the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal is correct in law and on facts in upholding this disallowance of an amount of ₹1, 60, 00,064/-, being a contractual trading liability incurred in the nature

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

The appeal stands disposed of with no order as to

JUSTICE VIBHU BAKHRU JUDGMENT VIBHU BAKHRU, J 1. The present appeal has filed by the appellant under section 260A(1) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as the „Act‟) challenging the order dated 16.09.1999 passed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Delhi (hereinafter referred to as the „Tribunal‟) in I.T.A. No.2722/De1/91 relating to assessment year

The Commissioner of Income Tax -III vs. Sri T.C. Reddy

The appeal stands dismissed

JUSTICE INDERJEET SINGH Judgment 04/09/2017 1. By way of this appeal, the appellant has assailed the judgment and order of the Tribunal whereby Tribunal has dismissed the appeal of the department and cross objection of the assessee was partly allowed for statistical purposes. 2. This court while admitting the appeal on 19.10.2011 framed following substantial question of law:- “i. Whether

COMM OF WEALTHTAX HYD vs. M/S. N.K.LEASINGANDCONST CO P.LTD HYD

Appeal is disposed of

nature of post-production expenditure and that there is no provision in the Act or the rules obliging the authorities to disallow such expenditure, the claim of the assessee that such expenditure would fall under section 37, of the Act is, in our view, well- founded. We, therefore, answer the second question referred to us in the affirmative and against

COMMR.OF INCOME TAX VISAKHAPATNAM vs. SOUTH GLORY INTERNATIONAL P.LTD VISAKHAP

Appeal is disposed of

nature of post-production expenditure and that there is no provision in the Act or the rules obliging the authorities to disallow such expenditure, the claim of the assessee that such expenditure would fall under section 37, of the Act is, in our view, well- founded. We, therefore, answer the second question referred to us in the affirmative and against

The Commissioner of Income Tax vs. M.Venkata Krishna Mohan

Bench: RAMESH RANGANATHAN,M.SATYANARAYANA MURTHY

JUSTICE PRATHIBA M. SINGH JUDGMENT Prathiba M. Singh J., The short question arising in the present appeal is – Whether the payment of Rs.1 Crore for exclusive use of the trade mark “HILTON” is to be treated as capital expenditure or revenue expenditure? 2. M/s. Hilton Roulands Ltd. (hereinafter „appellant‟) entered into Trade Mark license agreement dated 27th January, 1993 (hereinafter