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

2(ii) of Section 10B, the deduction claimed by the assessee under Section 10B was disallowed vide order dated 31.12.2008. 6. Being

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 [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-III vs. Smt.Anitha Sanghi

Bench: RAMESH RANGANATHAN,M.SATYANARAYANA MURTHY

disallowed? (ii) Whether the provisions of the Section 14A of the Act r/w Rule 8D of the Income Tax Rules should be made applicable to all pending matters as the 4 same is clarificatory in nature in view of the consistent stands taken by the department? (iii) Whether the Tribunal was correct in holding that the estimated expenditure cannot

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

Bench: RAMESH RANGANATHAN,M.SATYANARAYANA MURTHY

2. Whether the Tribunal is justified in directing the assessing officer to recomputed the deduction under section 10A after reducing those expenses that were reduced only from export turnover, to reduce from the total turnover also, without appreciating that there is no provision in section 10A to the effect that such expenses should also be reduced from the total turnover

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

Bench: GODA RAGHURAM,M.S.RAMACHANDRA RAO

2 of 18 under section 10B, of the Income Tax Act (“Act”, for short), for a period commencing from 1.4.2004 to 31.5.2004, contending that it had obtained approval as a 100% Export Oriented Unit under STPI scheme and had commenced operations from 1.4.2004. The Assessing Officer as well as the Tribunal have held that the appellant assessee had commenced