The Commissioner of Income Tax -V, vs. M/S Secunderabad Club

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

disallowance under Section 14A was not worked out.” 3. In W.P.(C) 2795/2008 (for AY 2005-06) the allegations and grounds of reassessment

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

In the result, the appeal is disposed of

Bench: ANIS,SANJAY KUMAR

disallowed in the original assessment proceeding cannot be permitted to be reagitated on the assessment being reopened for bringing to tax certain income which had escaped assessment because the controversy on reassessment

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

Bench: : The Hon’Ble Justice Surya Prakash Kesarwani & The Hon’Ble Justice Rajarshi Bharadwaj Date : 10Th April, 2024. Appearance: Mr. J. P. Khaitan, Senior Advocate Mr. Sanjay Bhowmick, Advocate Ms. Swapna Das, Advocate … For The Appellant. Ms. Smita Das De, Advocate … For The Respondent. 1. Heard Sri J. P. Khaitan, Learned Senior Advocate Assisted By Sri Sanjay Bhowmick, Learned Counsel For The Appellant/Assessee & Ms. Smita Das De, Learned Senior Standing Counsel For The Respondent. 2. The Assessment Years Involved In The Present Appeal Are Assessment Year 1999-2000 & Assessment Year 2000-01. By Order Dated 16.08.2012, This Appeal Was Admitted On The Following Substantial Questions Of Law :-

disallowed in the original assessment proceeding cannot be permitted to be reagitated on the assessment being reopened for bringing to tax certain income which had escaped assessment because the controversy on reassessment

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 and purchase. (While the matter stood thus, on 17.3.2006, the A.O. issued a reassessment

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

reassessment order was passed by the AO under Section 153A of the Act, whereby inter alia additions of various amounts were made under Section 68 of the Act for Assessment Years (AYs) 2002-03, 2003-04, 2005-06 and 2007-08. These amounts, being primarily towards monies received from various companies as well as disallowances

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

The appeals are dismissed

reassessment order was passed by the AO under Section 153A of the Act, whereby inter alia additions of various amounts were made under Section 68 of the Act for Assessment Years (AYs) 2002-03, 2003-04, 2005-06 and 2007-08. These amounts, being primarily towards monies received from various companies as well as disallowances

The Commissioner of Income Tax(Central) vs. M/s.Madhu Enterprises

Bench: The Learned

disallowance was deleted. 10. Aggrieved by the order dated 28.08.2015 passed by the learned CIT(A), the Revenue filed an appeal before the learned ITAT [ITA No.5892/Del/2015], which was also disposed of by the impugned order. 11. However, as noted above, the Revenue’s appeal in the present case does not arise in respect of the said decision. It arises

N R KRISHNA MURTHY vs. COMISSIONER INCOME TAX

The Appeal is dismissed

Bench: D.V.S.S.SOMAYAJULU,RAMESH RANGANATHAN

disallowance under Section 40(a)(ia), the Assessing Officer did not form a decision on the basis of any fresh or new material. Rather, the same material Digitally Signed Signed by: BHABAGRAHI JHANKAR Designation: Assistant Registrar-cum-Senior Secretary Reason: Authentication Location: ORISSA HIGH COURT, CUTTACK Date: 23-Apr-2024 17:11:20 Signature Not Verified Page

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

THE PR COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, HYD vs. SHRI TUMMALA SRI RAM BABU, VIJAYAWADA

Bench: RAMESH RANGANATHAN,KONGARA VIJAYA LAKSHMI

reassessed as under :- ₹7,48,440/- X 140/100 X 17 X 3/4 =₹1,33,59,654/- 13. So far as compensation granted by the Tribunal to the legal heirs of the deceased under the „non-pecuniary heads‟ is concerned, it needs to be brought in tune with Supreme Court’s Constitution Bench decision in Pranay Sethi (supra). Accordingly, compensation granted

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

Bench: ABHINAND KUMAR SHAVILI,V RAMASUBRAMANIAN

disallowed under Section 40(a) of the Act. Further, assessee did not make any payment and reversed the provision during the year ending March 31, 2008. In substance, assessee's case is, the original provision was not allowed as deduction and therefore reversal of the same cannot be taxed again. I.T.A No.71/2017 C/W I.T.A No.785/2017 13 16. Shri. Suryanarayana contended

Andhra PRadesh Pradesh Fibres Limited vs. Assistant commissioner of Income Tax

In the result, the order passed by the

Bench: V.V.S.RAO,SANJAY KUMAR

disallowed 100% depreciation on pollution control equipments amounting to Rs.4,93,00,000/-. The assessing officer also taxed the notional income on the amount of loan advanced to Madhya Pradesh State Electricity Board. The said order was subject matter of challenge before the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals). The Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) by an order dated 30.08.2010 held

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

The appeal stands dismissed

disallowance of said sum in the hands of the assessee is not justified. 21. "The total consideration paid by the assessee company to acquire 134.3 bighas of land as per the submission of AR is Rs. 119527000/- which includes Rs.75967000/- paid to M/s Mrigiya Electronics Inds. Pvt. Ltd. And balance to the land owners direclty. The AO has considered direct

M/s Kausalya Agro Farms and Developers pvt. ltd vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax

The appeals are allowed

Bench: N.TUKARAMJI,UJJAL BHUYAN

reassessment is challenged based on HCJ & NTRJ I.T.T.A.Nos.259 of 2022 & batch 4 the material recovered at the time of search of a group concern? 3. Whether the Tribunal failed to appreciate that the reasoning given in appeal of Indur Developers and Agencies Private Limited (ITA No.672/Hyd/2020 dated 21.3.2022) formed the basis for decision in this appeal and hence

M/s. Dakshin Infrastructures Private Limited vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax

The appeals are allowed

Bench: N.TUKARAMJI,UJJAL BHUYAN

reassessment is challenged based on HCJ & NTRJ I.T.T.A.Nos.259 of 2022 & batch 4 the material recovered at the time of search of a group concern? 3. Whether the Tribunal failed to appreciate that the reasoning given in appeal of Indur Developers and Agencies Private Limited (ITA No.672/Hyd/2020 dated 21.3.2022) formed the basis for decision in this appeal and hence

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

Bench: RAMESH RANGANATHAN,M.SATYANARAYANA MURTHY

disallowance, which is in relationship with Tax exempt income under Section 14A of the Act. In support of aforesaid submissions, reliance has been placed on decision of the Supreme Court in ‘COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX VS. WALFORT SHARE & STOCK BROKERS (P) LTD.’, (2010) 326 ITR 1, ‘GODREJ & BOYCE MANUFACTURING COMPANY LTD. VS. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME

M/S.MALLIKARJUNA RICE INDUSTRIES vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER

Bench: N.TUKARAMJI,UJJAL BHUYAN

disallowed d b;rck to the t()r-'il itrcotlre oi tl-ie rs scs';ee u4rile rq the assessmctrt tttrtle r Scctior i4ll'' t o1 the Act' v.Snotdorrc'lsscsstlrgo[licerrsstre.lri<.ticetlnder 1li4 oi the Act on l6'01'lCCl ro ihe;rppe[ant Lg to adcl the otrt st 'rritlir lg :llrlottrlt

Commissioner of Income Tax-II vs. M/s.Kalyani Wines

In the result, I find this appeal bereft of merit and accordingly,

Bench: Hon’Ble Mr. Justice Robin Phukan

reassessing the materials before the Arbitral Tribunal and substituting its view/opinion. xiii) The finding recorded by the learned Court to the effect that the respondent contractor had failed to complete the jobs within the stipulated period in terms of the contract and hence on the prayer of the respondent contractor time was extended by the applicant for completion is perverse