Sri Rajesh Rawtani vs. The Income Tax Officer

The appeals are disposed off in the above

Bench: P.SAM KOSHY,SUDDALA CHALAPATHI RAO

25 lacs which was credited to its interest account. The facts are that the assessee had applied for and was allotted tax free bonds during the relevant period. The interest sought to be taxed was for the period between the date of submission of application along with the money to the issuing agency i.e. the Railways and actual allotment

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

Bench: ABHINAND KUMAR SHAVILI,V RAMASUBRAMANIAN

10 the AO while passing the assessment order on 16.11.2011. Therefore, the reason recorded by the AO in the assessment order under Section 147 of the Act dated 19.12.2013 on the ground that deduction was allowed inadvertently is not sustainable. 12. In substance, Shri Suryanarayana's argument is, the AO had accepted the explanation and passed the assessment order. Therefore

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

Appeals are allowed in part

Bench: RAMESH RANGANATHAN,KONGARA VIJAYA LAKSHMI

section 131 of the Act. Having extensively considered the incriminating materials discovered at the time of search and seizure and the statements of the relevant persons recorded, disallowed the expenditure claimed. While determining the quantum of speed money of - 24 - Rs.26/- per ton against the claim of Rs.50/- per ton made by the assessee, held that the same is based

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

Commissioner of IncomeTax-2, vs. Mr. Mustafa Alam Khan,

Appeal is allowed

Bench: SANJAY KUMAR,GUDISEVA SHYAM PRASAD

25,23,333/- and `18,92,500/- was claimed, which was disallowed by the Assessing Officer4, vide assessment orders dated 24.12.2008 and 22.12.2009 respectively. Being aggrieved, the assessee preferred appeals before the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), Bangalore5, which were dismissed and the appeals filed by the assessee before the Tribunal were also dismissed. Being aggrieved the present appeal

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

10) of the Act, 1961. He further submitted that the Assessing Officer observed that the power plants were set up for Captive C,tnsumption and the APStrE; has granted sanction only for the purpose of Captive Consumption. Since the main objective for setting up of power plant is for captive consumption, the As sessing Ofhcer disallowed the entire claim

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

The Commissioner of Income Tax I vs. M/s. Bhagiradha Chemicals AND Industries Ltd.,

The appeal is disposed of

25,142/-. 4. Commissioner of Income Tax issued a notice under Section 263 of the Act, dated 4th February, 2011, on two grounds. Firstly, commission of Rs.69,53,949/- had been paid to the two Managing Directors, but should have been disallowed under Section 36(1)(ii) of the Act. Secondly, the assessee had booked majority of the expenses against

M/s.Tata Teleservices Limited vs. Dy. Commissioner of Income Tax

Bench: SUJOY PAUL,NAMAVARAPU RAJESHWAR RAO

Section 36(1)(iii) of the Act. In this context, our attention was drawn to the following parts of the order passed by the CIT(A): “5.4…The above facts show that appellant has made Long Term Investment of Rs.119,75,81,172/- by taking the loan of Rs.119,00,00,000/- on which it has paid interest of Rs.5

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 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

disallowed the claim by treating the entire expense as incurred on capital account. Even depreciation was not allowed. 5. The CIT (Appeals) affirmed the aforesaid findings given by the Assessing Officer. 6. In the second appeal before the tribunal, it has been held that the expenditure incurred was a revenue expense and should be allowed. ITA 160/2012 Page

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

25,65,514/-. The Assessing Officer, by an order dated 03.02.2014, processed the return. Thereafter, the case of the assessee was taken up for scrutiny and notice under Section 143(2) of the Act was issued. The Assessing Officer, during the course of the proceedings, found that the 4 assessee - Company had returned the international transaction in Form 3CEB

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

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. Himagiri Biotech Pvt. Ltd.,

disallowance can be made.” 9. It is argued by the revenue that ITAT has failed to appreciate that for the claim of interest, it is necessary that, firstly, the money ITA Nos.512/2013, 516/2013, 517/2013, 518/2013, 519/2013 & 526/2013 Page 10 must have been borrowed by the assessee, secondly, it must have been borrowed for the purpose of business and thirdly

The Commissioner of Income Tax V vs. Smt. Ch. Uma

10:- (ii) Whether the penalty of Rs.52 lakhs imposed under section 45A of the Kerala General Sales Tax Act, and paid under orders of the High Court, ought to be treated as an expenditure for the assessment year, even though the dispute had not attained finality? (iii) Whether the amount of Rs.1,25,12,348/- claimed as quality loss paid

Commissioner of Income Tax vs. M/s Ch.Veeraju AND co.

10:- (ii) Whether the penalty of Rs.52 lakhs imposed under section 45A of the Kerala General Sales Tax Act, and paid under orders of the High Court, ought to be treated as an expenditure for the assessment year, even though the dispute had not attained finality? (iii) Whether the amount of Rs.1,25,12,348/- claimed as quality loss paid