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

29,94,124/- as exemption under Section 80-IB(10) of the Act by declaring the flats sold 4 during the year in accordance with the "Percentage Completion Method". The Assessing Officer by an order dated 27.03.2014 inter alia held that there is no provision under Section 80-IB(10) of the Act to allow the proportionate deduction. Therefore

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

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 (Exemptions0 vs. Kalinga Cultural Trust

In the result, we do not find any

Bench: ANIS,SANJAY KUMAR

29,715/- under Section 10B of the Act. The Assessing Officer completed the assessment under Section 143(3) of the Act vide order dated 31.12.2010. Thereafter, there was a survey in the premises of the assessee on 05.11.2009 and simultaneously survey was also carried out in the premises of M/s Fiber and Fabrics International Private Limited (FFIPL), which

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

29,715/- under Section 10B of the Act. The Assessing Officer completed the assessment under Section 143(3) of the Act vide order dated 31.12.2010. Thereafter, there was a survey in the premises of the assessee on 05.11.2009 and simultaneously survey was also carried out in the premises of M/s Fiber and Fabrics International Private Limited (FFIPL), which

Commissioner of Income Tax-III, vs. M/s Sree Rayalaseema Green Energy Limited,

10,29,643 Total Rs 2,51,96,577 Since this provision is not allowable, the amount of Rs 2,51,96,577 is disallowed and added to the income of the assessee. Since I am satisfied that the assessee has furnished inaccurate particulars of its income, penalty proceedings under section

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 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

29,024/- to JII. The assessee sought to justify the consideration paid to international transactions entered with JII to be at arm's length. 4. The Assessing Officer thereafter referred the matter to the Transfer Pricing Officer, who by an order dated 30.01.2014 inter alia computed the transfer pricing adjustment at Rs.20,20,07,861/- under Section 92CA

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

THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-I, vs. AYYAPPA INFRA PROJECTS PVT LTD.,

Bench: RAMESH RANGANATHAN,M.SATYANARAYANA MURTHY

disallowed the expense which was debited in the Profit & Loss Account. Against Ext.P3 Order dated 17.12.2010 passed by the assessing authority, the petitioner filed a Revision Petition under section 264 of the Income Tax Act before the 2nd respondent. The 2nd respondent had dismissed the revision on the ground that the petition is not maintainable for want of fee accompanying

The Commissioner of Income Tax - IV vs. M/s. Mekins Agro Product (P) Ltd.

29 of the Income-tax Act. However, the issue that requires consideration is when the expenditure incurred for acquisition of depreciable assets itself is treated as application of income for charitable purposes under section ll(l)(a) of the Act, should not the cost of such assets to be treated as nil for the assessee and in that situation depreciation

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

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

29,45,33,370/-. These expenses have to apportion according W.P.(C) 422/2006, 2794/2008, 2795/2008 & 8177/2008 Page 4 of 10 to sales which has not been done resulting in excess claim of deduction in certain units and increased loss in certain units. The total sales of all units have been declared at ₹ 246,11,90,504/- (c) Besides, there were

THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX III, vs. M/S. SAVIJANA SEA FOODS PVT. LTD.,

Appeals of the Revenue are dismissed

Bench: J SREENIVAS RAO,ALOK ARADHE

Section 260-A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 („Act‟) of which 1 is by the Assessee and 10 are by the Revenue. Apart from the facts being similar, the questions of law too are common to many of the appeals. They are accordingly disposed of by this common judgment. Background facts 2. The Assessee is engaged to the business

Commissioner of Income Tax, vs. M/s. Kokivenkateswara Reddy AND others,

Appeals of the Revenue are dismissed

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

Section 260-A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 („Act‟) of which 1 is by the Assessee and 10 are by the Revenue. Apart from the facts being similar, the questions of law too are common to many of the appeals. They are accordingly disposed of by this common judgment. Background facts 2. The Assessee is engaged to the business

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

The appeals are dismissed

Bench: J. UMA DEVI,V RAMASUBRAMANIAN

disallowed. As noticed in the previous parts of this judgment, while examining the reach of the Explanation to Section 37, it would have to be found as a matter of fact that the expenditure was incurred for the commission of an offense as known in law or for a purpose prohibited. A breach of the Bar Council of India Rules

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

The appeals are hereby dismissed

Bench: RAMESH RANGANATHAN,KONGARA VIJAYA LAKSHMI

disallowance of exemption. 74. It cannot possibly be suggested that the Government of Punjab formed the trusts under the Punjab Town Improvement Act, 1922 because it wanted to carry on the business as colonizers or developers under the mask of the category “objects of general public utility”. PANKAJ BAWEJA 2018.09.20 19:01 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity

The Commissioner of Income Tax-I vs. Ascend Telecom Infrastructure Private Limited

Bench: RAMESH RANGANATHAN,M.SATYANARAYANA MURTHY

29 provides that income from profits and gains of business shall be computed in accordance with section 30 to section 43C, That, section 32(1) of the Act provides for depreciation in respect of building, plant and machinery owned by the assessee and used for the business purposes. It further provides for deduction subject to section 34. In that matter

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

10 (2007) 291 ITR 519(SC) 11 (2000)241 ITR 124 (MP) 12(2001)251 ITR 009 (SC) 13(2010)291ITR 519 (SC) 14AIR 1973 S.C. 22 15(2008)306 ITR 277 (SC) HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE GODA RAGHURAM AND HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE M.S.RAMACHANDRA RAO I.T.T.A.Nos.29, 31 & 33 of 2000 COMMON JUDGMENT (per Hon’ble Sri Justice M.S.Ramachandra Rao): I.T.T.A.Nos