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

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

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-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

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

Bench: The Learned

27, Vasant Vihar, New Delhi [the new asset]. 5. On 17.12.2012, a search and seizure operation was carried out under Section 132 of the Act on persons constituting the FIITJEE Group. The Assessee was also one of the persons searched. Thereafter, the AO issued a notice dated 13.08.2013 under Section 153A of the Act and during the ensuing proceedings, examined

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

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 vs. K.VENKATESWARLU

Accordingly they are dismissed

Bench: V.ESWARAIAH,K.G.SHANKAR

10 (14) of the Act was disallowed, against which, the application filed under Section 154 of Act before the Income Tax Officer was also rejected. Against the said order of the Income Tax Officer, the assessees filed appeals before the Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) and the Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) allowed the appeals following certain decisions

The Commisioner of Income TAx-1 vs. Divya Shakti Granites Ltd.,

Bench: RAMESH RANGANATHAN,M.SATYANARAYANA MURTHY

27 - RFA No.178 OF 2015 C/W RFA CROB NO.19 OF 2015 9. AS TO WHO PERFORMED THE OBLIGATIONS AND WHO BREACHED THEM: 9.1 The vehement submission of learned Sr. Advocate Mr.Jayakumar S Patil that the obligation to obtain land conversion to commercial user in the text & context of Exs.P2, P3, P4 & P5 rests with the plaintiff himself, is difficult

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 notice were identical. The AO felt that mixing up of trading sales and absence of unit specific profit and loss accounts led to excess deduction under Section 80IB to the extent

COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX vs. M/S K.VENKATESWARA RAO

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

disallowances made by the Assessing Officer, the apepllant preferred first appeal before the learned CIT(Appeals) who granted partial relief to the appellant. 2.1 Being aggrieved by the order passed by the learned Page 2 of 14 O/TAXAP/186/2003 JUDGMENT CIT(A) the appellant as well as respondent preferred appeals before the Tribunal, Ahmedabad Bench. The Tribunal vide impugned orders dismissed

Commissioner of Income Tax vs. J Charan Kumar [HUF]

The appeals are dismissed

Bench: J. UMA DEVI,V RAMASUBRAMANIAN

27. We at the outset note that it is not the case of the appellants that an offense, as generally understood, was committed. According to them, a violation of the Bar Council of India rules amounted to the respondent acting in violation of a statutory prohibition and thus the expenditure liable to be disallowed. 28. We find ourselves unable

The Commissioner of Income Tax - Central vs. M/s. Himagiri Biotech Pvt. Ltd.,

27,695/-, the AO added back that sum and brought it to tax. Likewise, similar amounts were added back for other years: `3,21,09,750/- (for 2008-09) and `3,25,85,450/- (for 2009-10). 5. The assessee appealed against the additions for all the three assessment years. The Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) – hereafter

Commissioner of Income Tax vs. Agricultural Market Committee

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

disallowed by the Assessing Officer and after verifying the relevant records. Thus, a finding was recorded that the assessee Shivani Gupta 2024.01.19 12:57 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document ITA No.244 of 2011 and ITA No.512 of 2017 4 2024:PHHC:004741-DB had not furnished any inaccurate particulars and the Assessing Officer as well

Mr. K.S.N.Raju vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax,

Bench: ANIS,SANJAY KUMAR

disallowing the same. Whereas; on account of failure to take into consideration the evidence of the prosecution as regard the remaining accused, she prays to allow Criminal Appeal Nos. 419 and 420 of 2016. 7. This being the first Appellate Court, as required by law we undertook the exercise of re-appreciating, re-examining and re-analyzing of prosecution evidence

THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-IV, HYDERABAD vs. M/S NAVA BHARAT VENTURES LTD., HYDERABAD

Bench: P.SAM KOSHY,NARSING RAO NANDIKONDA

10) of.the Act, e Assessing Officer observed r Captive ConsumPtion and ly for the pufpose of CaPtive tive for setting uP of Power n, the Assessing Officer ction under Section 8O-IA of ned counsel for resPondent by the CIT (A) and the ITAT wad transferred from Power recovery rate of Power and ed by AP TRANSCO from

CHENNAKESAVA PHARMACEUTICALS VIJAYAWADA vs. THE COMI.OF INCOMETAX VIJ.

In the result, all the appeals are allowed setting aside the common

Bench: GODA RAGHURAM,M.S.RAMACHANDRA RAO

27-3-1987 under Section 143 (3) of the Act. The assessing officer later passed orders under Section 271 (1) (c) of the Act levying a penalty of Rs.50,000, Rs.62,000 and Rs.70,985/- respectively for each of the above three years. 4. Challenging the same, the assessee filed appeals to the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals