THE PR COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX vs. M/s. Value Labs

Bench: P.KESHAVA RAO,V RAMASUBRAMANIAN

Section 10A(4) is categoric enough to explain that "profits derived from export of articles or things or computer software shall be the amount which bears to the profits of the business of the undertaking, the same proportion as the export turnover in respect of such articles or things or computer software bears to the total turnover of the business

Commissioner of Income tAx, vs. Sri Padala Ramakrishna Reddy,

The appeals stand dismissed

Bench: RAMESH RANGANATHAN,M.SATYANARAYANA MURTHY

10A or section 10B has been claimed, the undertaking shall not be entitled to the deduction under this section : Provided further that no deduction under this section shall be allowed to any undertaking for the assessment year beginning on the 1st day of April, 2010 and subsequent years. (2) This section applies to any undertaking which fulfils the following conditions

The Commissioner of Income Tax vs. M/s Kaveri Bar AND Restaurant,

Bench: ABHINAND KUMAR SHAVILI,V RAMASUBRAMANIAN

disallowance causing alleged escapement of income. Mr. Khaitan, learned senior counsel appearing for the assessee/petitioner relies on a decision of this Court in the case of Calcutta Club Ltd. vs. Income-Tax Officer and Ors. reported in (2020) 426 ITR 157 (Cal) particularly paragraph 30 of the said judgment which is quoted hereunder : “30. Considering the submission of the parties

Commissioner of Income Tax-3, vs. M/s State Bank of Hyderabad

Bench: RAMESH RANGANATHAN,M.SATYANARAYANA MURTHY

disallowance of Rs.27,25,570/- on profit from sale of spare parts which was excluded from 10A claim as it did not pertain to profit earned from export of manufactured item which cannot become part of 10A income and said activity was only trading activity and not manufacturing activity?” 3. The substantial question of law No.2 is covered

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

Bench: RAMESH RANGANATHAN,M.SATYANARAYANA MURTHY

5 Explanation (g) to Section 115JA of the Act? (v) Whether the Tribunal was correct in holding that the Assessing Officer cannot add the interest on zero coupon bonds to chargeable book profits by invoking explanation to Section 115JA(2) of the Act? 2. ITA No.99/2010 was admitted by a bench of this court on the following substantial question

The Commissioner of Income Tax [Central] vs. Akula Nageswara Rao

The appeals stand dismissed

Bench: SANJAY KUMAR,GUDISEVA SHYAM PRASAD

disallowed in respect of Barotiwala Unit during the assessment year 2012-13. Accordingly, show cause notice under Section 263 of the Act was issued on 28.02.2016 by the CIT. After considering the reply filed by the assessee, order under Section 263 of the Act was passed by the CIT on 16.03.2016. Aggrieved by the order, the assessee filed an appeal

The Commissioner of Income Tax IV vs. M/s. Nav Bharat Enterprises Limited

disallowed the expenditure under section 40(a)(i) of IT Act as the assessee had failed to comply with the provisions of section 195 while making payments to the vendors? (3) Whether on the facts and circumstances of the case, the tribunal is right in law in setting aside the reallocation of expenditure done by assessing authority relating to expenditure

Commissioner of Income Tax-V, vs. M/s.Sirveen Control Systems,

The appeals stand dismissed

10A, we are of the considered opinion that it will be open for the department while making assessment to follow provision of Section 11(5) and Section 13 to disallow

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 PRL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX [CENTRAL] HYDERABAD vs. M/S SREE NAGENDRA CONSTRUCTIONS, KHAMMAM

In the result, appeal stands dismissed

Bench: This

disallowance of exchange fluctuation loss of Rs.3,63,47,099/- made by the assessing authority even when the CBDT Instruction No.3/2010 dated 23.03.2010 refers to market losses are notional and contingent and actual losses are allowable as non-speculative only if the transaction qualifies as eligible derivative transaction under clause [d] of proviso to section 43[5

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

10A on 22nd February, 2006. The said application came to be rejected by an order dated 22nd August, 2006 for non- compliance of few queries. The said order came to be set aside by the ITAT vide its order dated 14th November, 2006 and the matter was remitted for fresh consideration. The Director of Income Tax (Exemption), Ahmedabad, vide