Commissioner of Income Tax - II vs. M/s. Healthware Private Limited

In the result, the order passed by the tribunal

46,17,415/- under Section 115JB of the Act. The case was selected for scrutiny and notice under Section 143(2) of the Act was 4 issued. The Assessing Officer passed an order under Section 143(3) of the Act on 31.12.2007 and disallowed the deduction claimed under Section 80IA(4)(iv)(c) of the Act and held that computation

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

The appeal of the assessee is allowed

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

46,329/- Interest on unsecured loan: Nil Total 14,69,103/- 10. The AO has nowhere in his order established that the appellant company had raised interest bearing loan and diverted them to partners/parties without charging interest. 11. I further find that Rs.3,11,22,866/- was financed by the company from self sources without any cost i.e. Rs.90

The Commissioner of Income Tax-II vs. The Andhra Bank Employees Co.Operative Bank Limited

In the result, for the above reasons, these appeals fail and

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

disallowed by the assessing officer on the ground that the assessee did not obtain prior approval in respect of investments against statutory reserves as required under Section 46 of the Andhra Pradesh Cooperative Societies Act, 1964 (the Societies Act) and Rule 37(2) of the Andhra Pradesh Cooperative Societies Rules, 1964 (the Societies Rules). The assessing officer came

Commissioner of Income Tax-II, vs. M/S The A.P.Mahesh Coop. Urban Bank Ltd,

In the result, for the above reasons, these appeals fail and

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

disallowed by the assessing officer on the ground that the assessee did not obtain prior approval in respect of investments against statutory reserves as required under Section 46 of the Andhra Pradesh Cooperative Societies Act, 1964 (the Societies Act) and Rule 37(2) of the Andhra Pradesh Cooperative Societies Rules, 1964 (the Societies Rules). The assessing officer came

Commissioner of Income Tax -II vs. The Agrasen Coop. Urban Bank Ltd.,

In the result, for the above reasons, these appeals fail and

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

disallowed by the assessing officer on the ground that the assessee did not obtain prior approval in respect of investments against statutory reserves as required under Section 46 of the Andhra Pradesh Cooperative Societies Act, 1964 (the Societies Act) and Rule 37(2) of the Andhra Pradesh Cooperative Societies Rules, 1964 (the Societies Rules). The assessing officer came

COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-II, HYDERABAD vs. M/s. The A.P.Vardhaman(Mahila)Cooperative Urban

In the result, for the above reasons, these appeals fail and

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

disallowed by the assessing officer on the ground that the assessee did not obtain prior approval in respect of investments against statutory reserves as required under Section 46 of the Andhra Pradesh Cooperative Societies Act, 1964 (the Societies Act) and Rule 37(2) of the Andhra Pradesh Cooperative Societies Rules, 1964 (the Societies Rules). The assessing officer came

M/s. Dakshin Infrastructures Private Limited vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax

The appeals are allowed

Bench: N.TUKARAMJI,UJJAL BHUYAN

disallowance of interest expenditure under Section 36(1)(iii) of the Act made by the assessing officer and partly affirmed by the first appellate authority. As a matter of fact, first appellate authority had granted limited relief to the assessees. For the balance relief, appeals were filed by the assessees before the Tribunal. 7. In another batch of appeals

M/s Kausalya Agro Farms and Developers pvt. ltd vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax

The appeals are allowed

Bench: N.TUKARAMJI,UJJAL BHUYAN

disallowance of interest expenditure under Section 36(1)(iii) of the Act made by the assessing officer and partly affirmed by the first appellate authority. As a matter of fact, first appellate authority had granted limited relief to the assessees. For the balance relief, appeals were filed by the assessees before the Tribunal. 7. In another batch of appeals

Commissioner of Income Tax, vs. Dr. T.Ravi Kumar,

Bench: : The Hon’Ble Justice Surya Prakash Kesarwani & The Hon’Ble Justice Rajarshi Bharadwaj Date : 10Th April, 2024. Appearance: Mr. J. P. Khaitan, Senior Advocate Mr. Sanjay Bhowmick, Advocate Ms. Swapna Das, Advocate … For The Appellant. Ms. Smita Das De, Advocate … For The Respondent. 1. Heard Sri J. P. Khaitan, Learned Senior Advocate Assisted By Sri Sanjay Bhowmick, Learned Counsel For The Appellant/Assessee & Ms. Smita Das De, Learned Senior Standing Counsel For The Respondent. 2. The Assessment Years Involved In The Present Appeal Are Assessment Year 1999-2000 & Assessment Year 2000-01. By Order Dated 16.08.2012, This Appeal Was Admitted On The Following Substantial Questions Of Law :-

46 ITR 181 (Bom) M/s. C.P. Pictures Limited Vs. CIT 4) (1981) 128 ITR 402 (Del) Addl. CIT Vs. M/s. Rajindra Flour & Allied Industries Private Limited and several other decisions. 3.5 The appellant has also given several decisions to support its claim that liability of prior period is allowable in the year of 9 crystallization. So, in view

The Pr. Commissioner of Income-Tax-1 vs. M/s. New River Software System Pvt Ltd.,

The appeals are dismissed

Bench: RAMESH RANGANATHAN,M.SATYANARAYANA MURTHY

46 of the IT Rules:- “(i) Attested copy of Certificate of Incorporation of M/s Russian Technology Centre Holding Ltd. (ii) Attested copy of Certificate of Incumbency of M/s Russian Technology Centre Holding Ltd. (iii) Attested copy of Certificate of Good Standing of M/s Russian Technology Centre Holding Ltd. (iv) Director Certificate of M/s Russian Technology Centre Holding Ltd. (v) Balance

The Commissioner of Income Tax-I vs. Adaptec [India] Ltd

The appeals are dismissed

46 of the IT Rules:- “(i) Attested copy of Certificate of Incorporation of M/s Russian Technology Centre Holding Ltd. (ii) Attested copy of Certificate of Incumbency of M/s Russian Technology Centre Holding Ltd. (iii) Attested copy of Certificate of Good Standing of M/s Russian Technology Centre Holding Ltd. (iv) Director Certificate of M/s Russian Technology Centre Holding Ltd. (v) Balance

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

10(2)(xv) of the Indian Income Tax Act, 1922? It was acknowledged that “In choosing to compensate its constituents for the loss of their jewellery and maintain its business connections and goodwill, the bank laid out expenditure for the purpose of its business.” 32. It was further explained that “The sole question is whether the bank in incurring

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

Appeals of the Revenue are dismissed

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

10(2)(xv) of the Indian Income Tax Act, 1922? It was acknowledged that “In choosing to compensate its constituents for the loss of their jewellery and maintain its business connections and goodwill, the bank laid out expenditure for the purpose of its business.” 32. It was further explained that “The sole question is whether the bank in incurring

The Commissoner of Income Tax I , vs. M/s. Alpha Thought Technologies P Ltd.,

In the result, the orders passed by the

Bench: RAMESH RANGANATHAN,M.SATYANARAYANA MURTHY

disallowing interest on the ground that interest payments had not been debited to the profit and loss account and there is no direct nexus between the interest paid to term lenders and the interest earned from other sources. It is further submitted that the interest income accrued from the monies kept in the fixed deposits and nexus between the deposit

The Commissioner of Income Tax- I vs. M/s. Avon Organics Limited

Bench: GODA RAGHURAM,M.S.RAMACHANDRA RAO

disallowed as revenue expenditure but capitalised, is as under:- “S.No. Expenses Head Amount 01. Salary & Wages 2283936 02 Employer Contribution to PF 46658 03 Employer Contribution to ESI 46919 04 Admin Charges PF/EDLI 4316 05 ESLI Charges 1943 06 Medical Expenses 151 07 Books & Periodicals 986 08 House Keeping Expenses 42493 09 Generator Running Maintt. 25121 ITA 257/2012 Page

The Commissioner of Income Tax (Central) vs. G Radha Charan Reddy

Bench: RAMESH RANGANATHAN,M.SATYANARAYANA MURTHY

46 YEARS MARINE DRIVE, KOCHI - 31, REPRESENTED BY ITS DGM (TAXATION AND ACCOUNTS), MR.VARGHESE P. JACOB. BY ADVS. SRI.A.KUMAR SRI.P.J.ANILKUMAR SMTG.MINI1748 SRI.P.S.SREE PRASAD RESPONDENTS: 1 THE STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY SECRETARY, TAXES DEPARTMENT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM - 695 001. 2 COMMISSIONER OF COMMERCIAL TAXES THIRUVANANTHAPURAM - 695 001. 3 DEPUTY COMMISSIONER COMMERCIAL TAXES, ERNAKULAM - 682 018. 4 THE ASST.COMMISSIONER ASSESSMENT COMMERCIAL TAXES, SPECIAL

The Pr. Commissioner of Income vs. Shri. Vishnu Mohan Reddy Chintapally

Appeal is disposed of

Bench: J SREENIVAS RAO,ALOK ARADHE

Sections 143(2) and 142(1) of the Act, along with a questionnaire, were issued on 05.07.2016 and duly served on 08.07.2016. Digitally Signed By:RAM KUMAR Signing Date:10.02.2025 14:40:57 Signature Not Verified ITA No.113/2024 Page 4 of 8 10. The assessment order dated 20.12.2016 passed in the name of the Firm records that in response

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

10 RAM BAGH AZAD MARKET ROHTAK ROAD NEW DELHI Respondent Through Mr. Ajay Vohra with Ms. Kavita Jha, Mr. Vaibhav Kulkami and Ms. Bhoomika Chaudhary, Advocates. CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJIV KHANNA HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJEEV SACHDEVA ORDER % 27.11.2013 CM No.14785/2013 (delav^ in ITA 449/2013 For the reasons stated in the apphcation, the appHcation is allowed and thedelay