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 commissioner of Income Tax-I vs. M/s Bhagyanagar Studios

The appeals are disposed of in the manner indicated above

Bench: RAMESH RANGANATHAN,M.SATYANARAYANA MURTHY

Section 10B(1) of the Act. 10. The Assessing Officer while disallowing the deduction was swayed by the facts that

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

The appeals stand dismissed

Bench: RAMESH RANGANATHAN,M.SATYANARAYANA MURTHY

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, namely

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

Bench: RAMESH RANGANATHAN,M.SATYANARAYANA MURTHY

1 MANIPAL. ... RESPONDENT (By Sri.T.SURYANARAYANA, ADV.) - - - THIS I.T.A. IS FILED UNDER SECTION 260-A OF I.T. ACT, 1961 ARISING OUT OF ORDER DATED 9/10/2009 PASSED IN ITA No.1282/BANG/2007, FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2000-2001, PRAYING TO FORMULATE THE SUBSTANTIAL QUESTIONS OF LAW STATED THEREIN. ALLOW THE APPEAL AND SET ASIDE THE ORDERS PASSED BY THE ITAT BANGALORE IN ITA NO.1282/BANG/2007

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 [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- I vs. M/s. Avon Organics Limited

Bench: GODA RAGHURAM,M.S.RAMACHANDRA RAO

1 of 18 $~55 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI Date of decision: 11th August, 2014 + INCOME TAX APPEAL 257/2012 OMNIGLOBE INFORMATION TECH INDIA PVT LTD ..... Appellant Through Mr. Ajay Vohra and Ms. Kavita Jha, Advocates. versus CIT ..... Respondent Through Mr. Sanjeev Sabharwal, Sr. Standing Counsel. CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJIV KHANNA HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE