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, however, were rejected by the AO who was of the opinion that as Section 10B was in Chapter-III of the Act, under the heading ―incomes which do not form part of total income‖, legislative intent was clear that such

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

disallowance under Section 14A read with Rule 8D(2)(i) of the Rules was restricted to Rs.1,10,967/- and disallowance

The Commissioner of Income Tax-II vs. M/s.Pact Securities AND Financial Services Ltd

Bench: The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals), The Assessees Had Called In Question The Orders Of Assessing Officer (For Short ‘The A.O.’), Who, While Completing The Assessment For The Relevant Assessment Years Disallowed The Deduction Of The “Lease Equalization” Charges From The Lease Rental Income. The Disallowed Amounts By The Cit (Appeals) In These Appeals Are Of Rs.48,56,224/-, Rs,44,18,245/- & Rs.13,16,123/-.

Section 260A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (for short ‘the Act’), are preferred by the Revenue. Out of which, first two appeals are against the orders dated 30-07-2002 and 29-11-2002 in I.T.A.Nos.142/HYD/2002 and 141/HYD/2002 respectively and the remaining two are against the common order dated 26-03-2002 rendered by the Income Tax Appellate

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

Bench: ABHINAND KUMAR SHAVILI,V RAMASUBRAMANIAN

10(23G) of the Act and the said Section was omitted by Finance Act, 2006 with effect from April 1, 2007. 3 Assessment Year 4 Assessing Officer I.T.A No.71/2017 C/W I.T.A No.785/2017 7 7. On consideration of assessee's reply to the notice under Section 148 of the Act, the AO, vide order dated 19.12.2013 disallowed

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 under various sub-Sections of Section 10

Commissioner of Income tAx, vs. Sri Padala Ramakrishna Reddy,

The appeals stand dismissed

Bench: RAMESH RANGANATHAN,M.SATYANARAYANA MURTHY

disallowed under Section 43B or under Section 36(1)(va) of the IT Act.” 10. However, SLP is pending against

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

Appeals are allowed in part

Bench: RAMESH RANGANATHAN,KONGARA VIJAYA LAKSHMI

10 - THIS INCOME TAX APPEAL IS FILED UNDER SECTION 260-A OF INCOME TAX ACT 1961, ARISING OUT OF ORDER DATED 28.02.2018 PASSED BY THE INCOME-TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, BENGALURU IN M.P.NO.197/BANG/2017 (IN ITA NO.1361/BANG/2015) FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2009-2010, PRAYING TO I. FORMULATE THE SUBSTANTIAL QUESTIONS OF LAW STATED ABOVE. II. ALLOW THE APPEAL AND SET ASIDE

THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (CENTRAL) HYD vs. RAJU NEURO AND MULTI SPECIALTIES PVT LTD., E.G.DIST

In the result, the appeal is disposed of

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

Section 80-IB(10) of the Act to allow the proportionate deduction. Therefore, the entire claim made by the assessee was disallowed

The Commissioner of Income Tax [Central] vs. Akula Nageswara Rao

The appeals stand dismissed

Bench: SANJAY KUMAR,GUDISEVA SHYAM PRASAD

10) of the Act recomputed the deduction admissible under Section 80IC of the Act and an addition of ` 7,44,41,112/- was made to the income of the assessee. Hence the income was assessed under Section 143(3) of the Act at ` 8,81,13,290/- vide order dated 30.01.2014, Annexure A.1. Aggrieved by the order, the assessee filed

Principal Commissioner of Income Tax-2 vs. M/s Indur Green Power Private Limited

In the result, all the appeals fail and are hereby

Bench: RAMESH RANGANATHAN,M.SATYANARAYANA MURTHY

10,00,000 (Ten Lacs.) Equity shares of Rs. 10/-(Rupees Ten only) each. IX. True accounts shall be kept of all sums of money received and expended by the Company and the matters in respect of which such receipts and expenditure take place and of the property, credits and liabilities of the Company; and, subject to any reasonable restrictions

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

Section 8O- IA(10) of the Act, 1961 and also observed that tlre Porver Plants, which wer: set up are only for Captive Consurnption and that the APSEB has granted sanction only for the purpose of Captive Consumpt on. Since the main objective for setr ing up of power plant is for Captive Consumption, the Assessitrg Ofhcer disallowed

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

disallowing the expenses on which tax has not been deducted at source. 11. The same is disputed by the learned counsel for the respondent. 12. Section 40(a)(ia) of the Income Tax Act reads as follows: “Section 40 – Notwithstanding anything to the contrary in sections 30 to 38, the following amounts shall not be deducted in 10

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

Bench: RAMESH RANGANATHAN,M.SATYANARAYANA MURTHY

10 expenditure in the scheme of Section 14A of the Act. It is further submitted that condition precedent for invoking Section 14A of the Act is pay out. In the instant case, since the assessee has not incurred any expenditure, therefore, the provisions of Section 14A of the Act do not apply to the fact situation of the case

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

10 SCC 153 (paragraphs 31 and 32) Hon’ble Supreme Court again explained the provisions of Section 14A of the Act 1961, in the matter and held as under: 17 “31. The aforesaid discussion and the cited judgements advise this Court to conclude that the proportionate disallowance

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

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

Commissioner of Income Tax, vs. M/s Y.Ramakrishna and Others

In the result, for the above reasons, we set aside the orders

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

Section 10 of the Act requires the Commissioner to assess the amount of tax due from the dealer and does not impose any liability as to “an order in writing”. In spite of these differences, the two provisions are substantially the same and impose on the assessing authority a duty to assess the tax after hearing such evidence

COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, vs. M/S G.R.K.PRASAD AND OTHERS

In the result, for the above reasons, we set aside the orders

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

Section 10 of the Act requires the Commissioner to assess the amount of tax due from the dealer and does not impose any liability as to “an order in writing”. In spite of these differences, the two provisions are substantially the same and impose on the assessing authority a duty to assess the tax after hearing such evidence

COMMISSIONER OFINCOEMETAX vs. M/S. V.SATYANARAYANA AND OTHERS

In the result, for the above reasons, we set aside the orders

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

Section 10 of the Act requires the Commissioner to assess the amount of tax due from the dealer and does not impose any liability as to “an order in writing”. In spite of these differences, the two provisions are substantially the same and impose on the assessing authority a duty to assess the tax after hearing such evidence