COMM OF INCOME TAX, HYD vs. M/S. BALAN NATURAL FOOD PRIVATE LTD., HYD

Bench: RAMESH RANGANATHAN,KONGARA VIJAYA LAKSHMI

10 of the Act and disallowed the aforesaid amount in terms of Section 14A of the Act. A sum of Rs.3,43,28,658/- being 5% thereof was estimated as expenditure incurred for earning such income. 3. The assessee, thereupon, filed an appeal. The Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) by an order dated 31.05.2011 partly allowed the appeal. Being aggrieved

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

disallowed in view Section 14A of the Act 1961. In paragraph 5 of the assessment order the A.O. has given details of investment in public sector bonds from borrowed capitals, which discloses that the investment was made by the assessee in public sector bonds on various dates. The bonds of American Express Bank Limited were purchased between

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

34,5i5.899/ - in respect of captive power plants for this assessmerrt vear. Further, the Assessing Officcr has restricted the deduc ion claimed by the assessee under Section 80 IA of the Act, 1961 from Rs.44,92,O4,89I/- to Rs.7,57,4U,99'2 l- by invoking the provisions of Section 80-IA(8) ar.rd Section 8O- IA(10

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

Bench: SUJOY PAUL,NAMAVARAPU RAJESHWAR RAO

10,34,493/-, which as indicated above, was offered for levy of tax. Therefore, the argument advanced by Mr Jain was that notwithstanding the depictions in the balance sheet, once the appellant/revenue has accepted the transaction as one concerning the sale of shares held as stock-in-trade, neither the CIT(A) nor the AO could have made an addition

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

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

34,646/- under Section 115 JB of the Act. 3. The respondent assessee had two units: One unit was located in a ITA No.365/2018 Page 2 of 9 non-STPI zone and hence its income was taxable. The other unit was located in a STPI zone in Gurgaon and its income was exempted under Section 10

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 Director of Income Tax, (Exemptions) vs. Royal Education Society

In the result, the appeal is disposed of

Bench: ANIS,SANJAY KUMAR

10 be made by the assessee in a proceeding under Section 148 of the Act. It is also urged that decision of the Supreme Court in Sun Engineering Works (P.) Ltd still holds the field. In support of aforesaid submissions, reference has been made to a decision in 'GOETZE (INDIA) LTD. VS. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX', (2006) 157 TAXMAN

Commissioner of Income Tax-2, vs. Agricultural Market Committee,

The appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: V.V.S.RAO,SANJAY KUMAR

Section 36(1)(iii) by this Court. In paras No. 7, 8, 9 and 10, it was observed as under:- “7. Further, the judgment in the case of ‘Abhishek Industries’ (supra) relied upon by both the Authorities below has also been overruled by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of ‘Hero Cycles

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

Bench: P.SAM KOSHY,NARSING RAO NANDIKONDA

disallowed as assessee under Section 80-IA of the Rs.37,34,55,899 l- in resPect of assessment Year. Further; the As the deduction claimed bY the ass the Act, 1961 from Rs.44,92'O4'8 invoking the Provisions of Secti IA(10

PRL COMM OF INCOME TAX-2, HYDERABAD vs. M/S NUZIVIDU SWATHI COASTAL CONSORTIUM, HYDERABAD

In the result, the appeal is disposed of

Bench: M.GANGA RAO,RAMESH RANGANATHAN

disallowed. The tribunal further held that the issue pertaining to Section 115JAA of the Act was not argued and the assessee cannot go back to the computation on the issue pertaining to Section 14A of the Act. In the result, the appeal was dismissed. In the aforesaid factual background, the assessee has filed this appeal. 6 4. Learned counsel

The Commissioner of Income Tax, vs. M/s. K.C.P.Limited

In the result, the appeal fails and is hereby dismissed

disallowed. The assessee thereupon preferred an appeal before the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), who by an order dated 22.07.2010 dismissed the appeal preferred by the assessee. The assessee thereupon filed an appeal before the Tribunal. The Tribunal, by an order dated 15.07.2011, inter alia held that reopening of the assessment under Section 147 read with Section

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

Bench: ANIS,SANJAY KUMAR

Sections 302, 201 r/w 34 of the Indian Penal Code and acquitting co-accused Nandkishor Balreddy Kolyame (Koltame) and Subhash Virbhadrappa Kumbhar. 2. Appellant Subhash Ganesh Gir has filed Criminal Appeal No. 418 of 2016 taking exception to the impugned Judgment and Order referred to above, whereas; State has filed two appeals viz. Criminal Appeal

Commissioner of Income Tax, vs. M/s Polisetty Somasundaram,

disallowed being not admissible as per provisions of the IT Act. (8) An addition of Rs.5,00,000/- is made out of total Foreign Travelling Expenses of Rs.9,87,601/- in its P & L Account as no AJAY PRASHER 2023.04.10 11:34 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document ITA No.140 of 2013 (O&M) -3- evidence

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

The appeals are dismissed

Bench: J. UMA DEVI,V RAMASUBRAMANIAN

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 is admittedly not classified as an offense. That then leaves us to examine whether the purpose underlying

AD-AGE OUTDOOR ADVERTISING P LTD., HYDERABAD. vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONEER OF INCOME TAX, HYDERABAD.

Bench: T.VINOD KUMAR,M.S.RAMACHANDRA RAO

10. The AO vide assessment order dated 29.3.2005 had held the deduction of Rs. 45,00,000/- claimed by the assessee as inadmissible on following grounds: - a) The financial year 2001-02 relevant to the assessment year 2002-03 had already been over -6- on 31.3.2002 and the accounts of the assessee for the said financial year also stood closed

The Commissioner of Incoe Tax III, vs. Raj Breeders and Hatcheries (PVT) Liited,

Bench: RAMESH RANGANATHAN,M.SATYANARAYANA MURTHY

10. The AO vide assessment order dated 29.3.2005 had held the deduction of Rs. 45,00,000/- claimed by the assessee as inadmissible on following grounds: - a) The financial year 2001-02 relevant to the assessment year 2002-03 had already been over -6- on 31.3.2002 and the accounts of the assessee for the said financial year also stood closed

Commissioner of income tax, vs. M/s. R.K. Palace,

Bench: RAMESH RANGANATHAN,M.SATYANARAYANA MURTHY

10. The AO vide assessment order dated 29.3.2005 had held the deduction of Rs. 45,00,000/- claimed by the assessee as inadmissible on following grounds: - a) The financial year 2001-02 relevant to the assessment year 2002-03 had already been over -6- on 31.3.2002 and the accounts of the assessee for the said financial year also stood closed