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

The Commissioner of Income Tax vs. Independent Assemblies of God

Bench: RAMESH RANGANATHAN,M.SATYANARAYANA MURTHY

Section 260-A of Income Tax Act, 1961 (for short ‘1961 Act’) is seeking setting aside of order dated 28.02.2005 passed by Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (for short ‘Tribunal’) to the extent deduction of expenses incurred on expansion outside the country and warranty claim have been disallowed. 2. The matter relates to Assessment Year 1997-98. The appellant is engaged

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

Appeals are allowed in part

Bench: RAMESH RANGANATHAN,KONGARA VIJAYA LAKSHMI

20 - observed by the CIT (A) that the Assessing Officer has also disallowed the amounts paid to the employees through sub-contractors which were accounted under the total speed money payment, 10% disallowance of the entire speed money paid shall serve the ends of justice. Against the said appellate order, both the assessee as well as the Revenue had preferred

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

The appeals stand dismissed

Bench: SANJAY KUMAR,GUDISEVA SHYAM PRASAD

disallowed in respect of Barotiwala Unit during the assessment year 2012-13. Accordingly, show cause notice under Section 263 of the Act was issued on 28.02.2016 by the CIT. After considering the reply filed by the assessee, order under Section 263 of the Act was passed by the CIT on 16.03.2016. Aggrieved by the order, the assessee filed an appeal

THE PRL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-II, VISAKHAPATNAM vs. L SURYAKANTHAM, VISAKHAPATNAM

In the result, the appeal fails and is hereby dismissed

Bench: RAMESH RANGANATHAN,KONGARA VIJAYA LAKSHMI

20,07,861/-, disallowance under Section 14A read with Rule 8D(2)(iii) to the extent of Rs.20,51,175/- and disallowance of Rs.74,08,964/- under the provisions of Section 80JJAA of the Act were proposed. The 5 assessee thereupon filed objections before the Dispute Resolution Panel contesting all the additions. The Dispute Resolution Panel, however rejected the objections

Commissioner of Income Tax -II vs. M/S Sri Ramanjaneya Poultry Farm Pvt., Ltd.,

Bench: CHALLA KODANDA RAM,G.CHANDRAIAH

20 and that words in that section were wide enough to take within its sweep even erroneous orders of assessment and would be entitled to claim protection against the institution of a civil suit. The court then observed: "The jurisdiction of a civil court can be excluded even without an express provision. In every case, the question about the exclusion

The Commissioner of Income Tax (Exemptions0 vs. Kalinga Cultural Trust

In the result, we do not find any

Bench: ANIS,SANJAY KUMAR

disallowed the assessee's claim for deduction under Section 10B of the Act. 5. The Assessing Officer inter alia held that assessee is entitled to deduction under Section 10B of the Act only after verification and the contention of the assessee that old machinery from FFIPL was transferred to it only in April 2007 does not deserve acceptance

Principal Commissioner of Income Tax-5 vs. M/s. VBC Industries Limited

In the result, we do not find any

Bench: RAMESH RANGANATHAN,M.SATYANARAYANA MURTHY

disallowed the assessee's claim for deduction under Section 10B of the Act. 5. The Assessing Officer inter alia held that assessee is entitled to deduction under Section 10B of the Act only after verification and the contention of the assessee that old machinery from FFIPL was transferred to it only in April 2007 does not deserve acceptance

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

20 14. being dismissed of vide separate order, the present appeals are also dismissed in terms of the afbresaid judgment, There shall be no order as to costs. Consequcntly, rniscellancous petitions pcnding, if any, shall stand olosed. SD/. N. SRIHARI EPUTY REGISTRAR SECTION OFFICER To, ADK/gh ,TTRUE COPY// Two CD CoPies Along with a copy of Judgment

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 of interest is not warranted, under Section 14-A of the Income

M/S AVANTHI BUSINESS MACHINES LTD., HYDERABAD. vs. DCIT [ASSTS] CIRCLE -1 [1] HYDERABAD.

Appeal is disposed of

Bench: N.TUKARAMJI,UJJAL BHUYAN

disallowing the said amount was . fully justilied and accordingly dismissed the appeal on this ground. 7. In further appeal before the Tribunal, it was held that there was no inlirmity in the view taken by the frrst appellate authority. ) 8. In Brooke Bond India Ltd. v. Commissioner of Income Taxr. Suprt-'me Court hacl held that expenses incurred in issue

The Commissioner of Income Tax-IV vs. Nekkanti Sea Foods Limited

The appeal is dismissed without any order as to costs

Bench: P.SAM KOSHY,NARSING RAO NANDIKONDA

Section 115JB of the Act. The Assessing Officer in the assessment order has recorded that the assessee had debited a sum of Rs.31,54,844/- in the computation of income as deferred revenue expense and 10% of the said amount was debited to the profit and loss account as deferred revenue expenditure. The assessee was accordingly asked to justify

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

The appeals are hereby dismissed

Bench: RAMESH RANGANATHAN,KONGARA VIJAYA LAKSHMI

10,97,950/- 21. The entire emphasis of the revenue is on the fact that the assessee-Trust had earned profits by selling plots. This itself cannot be a ground for denying the benefit under Section 11 of the Act, especially when it is not disputed that the selling of plots and premises by the trust is only incidental

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

Bench: The Learned

disallowance under Section 54F of the Act in terms of the order dated 18.03.2019 passed under Section 250 of the Act. The Assessee being aggrieved by the learned CIT(A)’s order preferred an appeal before the learned ITAT [being ITA 3426/Del/2019], which was allowed by the learned ITAT by the impugned order. The present appeal by the Revenue

The Pr. Commissioner of Income-tax vs. D.L.V. Sridhar

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

disallowed the entire claim of Rs.1,48,89,090/- under section 10A of the Act. 5. The aforesaid addition was deleted by the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), who observed that the respondent-assessee was maintaining separate accounts for STPI and non-STPI unit, and the Assessing Officer had not been able to point out a single entry in respect

Principal Commissioner of Income Tax vs. M/s Nara Constructions,

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

disallowed while computing the total income is not deemed to be income in respect of which particulars have been concealed. 6. In the context of the present case, we would like to first reproduce clause (viii) of Section 36(1) of the Act as applicable in the Assessment Years 2003-2004 to 2009-2010, which reads:- “36. (1) The deductions

The Commissioner of Inccome Tax-III vs. Speectra Shares AND Scrips Pvt Ltd

Bench: RAMESH RANGANATHAN,M.SATYANARAYANA MURTHY

disallowed the claim of the assessee to treat the rental income as income from the business. The said view of the Assessing Officer has been confirmed by the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) in Annexure-B order dated 14.03.2006, and by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (for short 'the Tribunal'), vide order dated 24.08.2007. 3.1 The assessee placed strong reliance