The Commissioner of Income Tax-I vs. M/s Andhra Bank

In the result, the appeal is dismissed

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

37,586/- was declared under Section 115JB of the Act. The return filed by the assessee was taken up for scrutiny and notices under Section 143(2) as well as Section 142(1) of the Act were issued to the assessee on 18.01.2010, 02.03.2010, 08.06.2010 and 02.11.2010. The details as sought by the Assessing Officer were furnished by the assessee

Commissioner of Income Tax-II vs. M/s.Kalyani Wines

In the result, I find this appeal bereft of merit and accordingly,

Bench: Hon’Ble Mr. Justice Robin Phukan

37 of 60 22. The learned District Judge, in the impugned judgment, taking note of the Clause 6.6.3.0., 6.6.3.1., 6.7.1.0., and 6.8.2.0. of the GCC and the letter dated 03.07.1999, No. RB/GR/DCU-CDU/98-99/15, and the letter dated 19.08.1999, No. RB/GR/DCU/CDU/98-99/21, held that till preparation of Final Bill, there was „no notified claim‟ on the part of the Contractor for escalation

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

Appeals are allowed in part

Bench: RAMESH RANGANATHAN,KONGARA VIJAYA LAKSHMI

37(1) of the Act which bars from making claim under said section in respect of unauthorized payments?” - 15 - ITA Nos.816/2017, 817/2017, 818/2017, 819/2017, 820/2017, 821/2017. “1. Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal is right in law in deleting the disallowance made by the assessing officer on account of speed money claimed

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

37. To search for and to purchase, protect, prolong, renew or otherwise acquire from any Government, state or authority any patents, protections, permissions, authorization, consents, licenses, concessions, grants. decrees. rights, powers and privileges whatsoever which may seem to the Company capable of being turned into account to work, develop, carry out exercise and turn to account the same. Page

COMR. OF IT HYD vs. M/S NEERAJ PETRO CHEMICALS LTD HYD

The appeal is partly allowed

disallowance of interest of Rs.9,88,740/- being alleged accruing liability of interest in pursuance to the order of this Hon’ble Court in respect of the excess fund received by the assessee company?” 7. We have heard learned counsel for both the sides. Insofar as question no.1 raised in T.A. No.382/2000, which is similar to the question

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

The appeals are dismissed

Bench: J. UMA DEVI,V RAMASUBRAMANIAN

disallowed in terms contemplated by Explanation 1 forming part of Section 37. 21. Appearing for the respondent assessee, Mr. Vohra, learned senior counsel submitted that it would be wholly incorrect to view the Bar Council of India Rules as amounting to a prohibition imposed by law and thus fall within the ken of Explanation 1. Mr. Vohra submitted that

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

Appeal is allowed

Bench: SANJAY KUMAR,GUDISEVA SHYAM PRASAD

10. Per contra, learned counsel for the Revenue would contend that the assessee has failed to demonstrate that the expenditure was a revenue expenditure having regard to Section 37 of the IT Act and hence, the decision of the 7 authorities is just and proper. Hence, he seeks for dismissal of the above appeal. 11. The relevant factual matrix

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

Commissioner of Income Tax-II vs. Energy Solutions International India Pvt Ltd.,

Bench: J. UMA DEVI,V RAMASUBRAMANIAN

37, which has the following text: “Any expenditure (not being expenditure of the nature described in section 30 to 36 and not being in the nature of capital expenditure or personal expenses of the assessee) laid out or expended wholly and exclusively for the purpose of the business or profession shall be allowed in computing the income chargeable under

The Commissioner of Income Tax-III vs. Smt.Anitha Sanghi

Bench: RAMESH RANGANATHAN,M.SATYANARAYANA MURTHY

37,618/-. Thereafter a notice was issued under Section 143(2) of the Act. The Assessing Officer by an order dated 31.12.2002 inter alia held that since exempted dividend does not form part of income, the assessee is not entitled to disallowance of proportionate expenses as required under Section 14A of the Act. Accordingly, an addition of Rs.20

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. Independent Assemblies of God

Bench: RAMESH RANGANATHAN,M.SATYANARAYANA MURTHY

disallowed. 2. The matter relates to Assessment Year 1997-98. The appellant is engaged in the business of automobile parts. With intent to expand its business outside the country, it incurred travelling and staff expenses outside the country during 1995-96 and 1996-97. The appellant attempted to set up a unit in China. The project could not be materialized

COMMR.OF INCOME TAX VISAKHAPATNAM vs. SOUTH GLORY INTERNATIONAL P.LTD VISAKHAP

Appeal is disposed of

disallowed the claim of the assessee. This Court vide order dated 06.10.1999 while admitting the matter has framed the following substantial questions of law. “(1) Whether in the facts and circumstances of the case the Tribunal has rightly allowed deduction at 10% of the expenditure on taking out positive prints of the films acquired for distribution. (2) Whether

COMM OF WEALTHTAX HYD vs. M/S. N.K.LEASINGANDCONST CO P.LTD HYD

Appeal is disposed of

Section 37 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 in the year in which it is incurred?” Learned counsel for the appellant contended that for the same assessee, the Department has accepted the claim of the appellant for the years 1987-88, 1988-89 & 1989-90, but only for the years 1990-91 and 1991-92, the same was disallowed. Subsequently

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 on 17.7.1989, 26.7.1989, 7.8.1989, 4.9.1989, 6.3.1990 and 30.3.1990. Thus, except the sales made on 17.7.1989 and 26.7.1989 the bonds of M/s. Peerless General Finance & Investment Co. Ltd. were sold by the assessee much after the repayment of the aforesaid finance of Rs.7.25 crores. 11. Thus, it can be safely concluded on the basis of facts and figures noted

The Commissioner of Income- Tax - V, vs. M/s. Krishnaveni Constructions,

Bench: RAMESH RANGANATHAN,M.SATYANARAYANA MURTHY

10. If there be interest-free funds available to an assessee sufficient to meet its investments and at the same time the assessee had raised a loan it can be presumed that the investments were from the interest-free funds available. In our opinion, the Supreme Court in East India Pharmaceutical Works Ltd. Case (supra) had the occasion to consider

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 and purchase. (While the matter stood thus, on 17.3.2006, the A.O. issued a reassessment notice, this time alleging that exemption claimed under Section 10(29) was inadmissible. He sought to add back a sum of ₹15,90,10

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

Section 36 (1) (iii). The ITAT also held that: “In fact the said were amounts were advanced during the FY 2005-06 and 2006-07. Orders were passed by the AO u/s 143(3) for both these years in which the scrutiny assessments have taken place, and no disallowance was made either u/s 36(1)(iii) or u/s 37