Samaj Seva Nidhi, vs. ACIT [Inv] circle-II

Bench: A RAMALINGESWARA RAO,DILIP B. BHOSALE

disallowing the benefit of accumulation under Section 11(2) of the Act for the amount of Rs.3,00,000/- and demanded the tax at Rs.1,27,676/-. Against the said order, the assessee preferred an appeal before the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), Vijayawada, who, by his order dated 29.08.1997, allowed the appeal by placing reliance on Director of Income

The Commissioner of Income Tax IV vs. M/s Matrix Power Pvt Ltd.,

disallowed, as the income of this unit was exempt from tax. In response, the Assessee furnished its detailed submissions, which, however, were rejected by the AO who was of the opinion that as Section 10B was in Chapter-III of the Act, under the heading ―incomes which do not form part of total income‖, legislative intent was clear that such

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

disallowed by the Act. In SETH M DALMIA supra, the Supreme Court referred to with approval the decision of the Bombay High Court in ‘COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX VS. H.H.MAHARANI VIJAYKUVERBA SAHEB OF MORVI’, (1975) 100 ITR 67, wherein the Bombay High Court while dealing with Section 12(2) of the Act, held that deduction permissible under the aforesaid provision

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

5. "Senior counsel, Sri A. K. J. Nambiar, a;ppearing for the assessee, submitted that the assessee has been filing income-tax returns for several years including the assessment year 2005-06, and disallowance is made only for this year. Since business income has to be as stated in section 29 by granting all deductions provided under sections

The Commissioner of Income Tax-I vs. Ascend Telecom Infrastructure Private Limited

Bench: RAMESH RANGANATHAN,M.SATYANARAYANA MURTHY

5 per cent. The question which arose before the court for determination was: whether depreciation could be denied to the assessee, as expenditure on acquisition of the assets had been treated as application of income in the year of acquisition? It was held by the Bombay High Court that section 11 of the Income Tax Act makes provision in respect

THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-III vs. M/S. SOMA ENTERPRISES LTD

The appeal is disposed off accordingly

Bench: The Hon'Ble Mr. Justice Ravi Malimath

disallowed for the purpose of computing exemption under Section 11 of the Act. 5. So far as the disallowance under

M/s. Sathavahana Ispat Limited vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax

Bench: P.SAM KOSHY,LAXMI NARAYANA ALISHETTY

disallowed the claim on the ground that as per the lease agreement these maintenance charges were to be borne by the tenants. The CIT(A), however, allowed this claim which view of the CIT(A) was affirmed by the Tribunal as well. 2. In so far as the rentals are concerned, the assessee kept on receiving the interim rent

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

The appeals stand dismissed

11(5) and Section 13 to disallow the expenses of the income as the case may be, if the same

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 :-

disallowing 50% depreciation is in conflict 11 with the provisions of Section 32 of the Act read with Rule 5

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

The appeal is disposed of

disallow the deduction as claimed by the assessee under Section 80IB(10) of the Act and to carry out the assessment 5 afresh in accordance with law after affording an opportunity of hearing to the assessee. 3. Being aggrieved, the assessee filed an appeal before the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Tribunal’, for short). The Tribunal

The Commissioner of Income Tax (Exemptions0 vs. Kalinga Cultural Trust

In the result, we do not find any

Bench: ANIS,SANJAY KUMAR

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

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

Commissioner of Income Tax -II vs. M/S Sri Ramanjaneya Poultry Farm Pvt., Ltd.,

Bench: CHALLA KODANDA RAM,G.CHANDRAIAH

5 months 1.6.01 – 31.5.02 @ 0.75% p.m. for 12 months 1.6.02 – 31.8.04 @ 0.66% p.m. for 27 months Rs.1,85,433.00 Rs.3,33,780.00 Rs.6,66,884.00 4. Rs, 52,96,733 05.03.04 5.3.04 – 31.8.04 @ 0.66% p.m. for 6 months Rs.2,09,750.00 TOTAL Rs.4,39,91,900 Rs.1,78,04,256.00 Excess amount paid by the Assessee

M/s.Tata Teleservices Limited vs. Dy. Commissioner of Income Tax

Bench: SUJOY PAUL,NAMAVARAPU RAJESHWAR RAO

11,00,000 shares, 5,00,000 shares were sold for Rs.100,25,30,887/-. Therefore, at the end of Digitally Signed By:PREM MOHAN CHOUDHARY Signing Date:06.12.2023 16:56:58 Signature Not Verified ITA 163/2018 Page 7 of 8 the said FY, the respondent/assessee was left with 6,00,000 shares worth Rs.1

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

disallowed in view Section 14A of the Act 1961. In paragraph 5 of the assessment order the A.O. has given details of investment in public sector bonds from borrowed capitals, which discloses that the investment was made by the assessee in public sector bonds on various dates. The bonds of American Express Bank Limited were purchased between

The Principal Commissioner of Income Tax vs. M/s.Midwest Granites Private Limited

Appeal stands dismissed accordingly

Bench: RAMESH RANGANATHAN,KONGARA VIJAYA LAKSHMI

11 and 2011-12 which has not reached finality even when the assessing authority rightly disallowed the said expenditure as all the conditions for invoking said provision were satisfied in case of assessee? - 4 - 4. Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, Tribunal is right in law in setting aside the disallowance made under Section

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

5(b) and (c) read with Section 6 of the BR Act. In so far as the income earned from these deposits is concerned, Section 80P(2)(a)(i) of the Act does not make any difference nor it is possible to read any such limitation having regard to the language of the said provision. Every income “attributable

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

5(b) and (c) read with Section 6 of the BR Act. In so far as the income earned from these deposits is concerned, Section 80P(2)(a)(i) of the Act does not make any difference nor it is possible to read any such limitation having regard to the language of the said provision. Every income “attributable