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

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 30 to 43D which includes depreciation under section 32, the assessee is entitled is the case pressed before us by the senior counsel appearing for the assessee. We have no doubt in our mind that

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

Bench: RAMESH RANGANATHAN,M.SATYANARAYANA MURTHY

section 11 on commercial principles after providing for allowance for normal depreciation and deduction thereof from gross income of the Trust. Date of Judgment 14-08-2018 I.T.A.No.346/2015 Commissioner of Income Tax & another Vs. M/s Academy of Liberal Education 8/21 In view of the aforestated Judgment of the Bombay High Court, we answer question No. 1 in the affirmative

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

disallowing the expenses on which tax has not been deducted at source. 11. The same is disputed by the learned counsel for the respondent. 12. Section 40(a)(ia) of the Income Tax Act reads as follows: “Section 40 – Notwithstanding anything to the contrary in sections 30 to 38, the following amounts shall not be deducted in 10 computing

Commissioner of IncomeTax-2, vs. Mr. Mustafa Alam Khan,

Appeal is allowed

Bench: SANJAY KUMAR,GUDISEVA SHYAM PRASAD

disallowed and in its place, depreciation of Rs.6,30,864/- is allowed and difference amount of Rs.18,92,500/- is added back to the income declared.” (emphasis supplied) 9 12. It is forthcoming that it has been held that the deduction is required to be made under Section 32(1) of the IT Act. 13. 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

11] and CIT v N.C.Budha Raja & Co.,[12]). Applying the settled rule of interpretation and liberally interpreting sub-section 2(a)(i) of Section 80P of the Act, the conclusion is inevitable that whatever be the amount of profits and gains of business of a cooperative society attributable to its banking transactions or credit transactions with members is exempt from

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

11] and CIT v N.C.Budha Raja & Co.,[12]). Applying the settled rule of interpretation and liberally interpreting sub-section 2(a)(i) of Section 80P of the Act, the conclusion is inevitable that whatever be the amount of profits and gains of business of a cooperative society attributable to its banking transactions or credit transactions with members is exempt from

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

11] and CIT v N.C.Budha Raja & Co.,[12]). Applying the settled rule of interpretation and liberally interpreting sub-section 2(a)(i) of Section 80P of the Act, the conclusion is inevitable that whatever be the amount of profits and gains of business of a cooperative society attributable to its banking transactions or credit transactions with members is exempt from

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

11] and CIT v N.C.Budha Raja & Co.,[12]). Applying the settled rule of interpretation and liberally interpreting sub-section 2(a)(i) of Section 80P of the Act, the conclusion is inevitable that whatever be the amount of profits and gains of business of a cooperative society attributable to its banking transactions or credit transactions with members is exempt from

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

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

6 inquirium inasmuch as in both the aforesaid judgments of the co- ordinate Bench of this Court, the Constitution Bench judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court in Distributors (Baroda) Private Limited v. Union of India & Others [1986] 1 SCC 43 (paragraphs 12-19) settling the law on the question i.e. with respect to computation of deduction under Section

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 -II vs. M/S Sri Ramanjaneya Poultry Farm Pvt., Ltd.,

Bench: CHALLA KODANDA RAM,G.CHANDRAIAH

11 of 14 Sd/- (Sanjay Gosain) Income Tax Officer, Ward 23(2), N. Delhi NAME & ADDRESS OF THE Sh. Vishwa Nath Khanna ASSESSEE Prop. Foto Traders, S-105, G.K. II, New Delhi. Asstt. Year 1995-96 PAN No. AAIPK2689M Date of Order 27.09.04 ORDER UNDER SECTION 245D(6) OF THE I.T. ACT In this case, a search and seizure operation

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

The appeals stand dismissed

Bench: RAMESH RANGANATHAN,M.SATYANARAYANA MURTHY

6. Mr. Jhanwar, counsel for the respondent has taken us to the judgment of the Tribunal and contended that while considering the process which has been undertaken by the assessee, the Tribunal has observed as under: “The various activities carried out by the appellant, are as under:- (i) Firstly, the appellant purchases wood, semi finished material which requires further wood

The Commissioner of Income Tax(Central) vs. M/s.Madhu Enterprises

Bench: The Learned

6. The AO passed an assessment order dated 27.03.2015 under Section 153A read with Section 143(3) of the Act restricting the deduction under Section 54F to ₹30 crores, as against ₹90 crores claimed by the Assessee. 7. The Assessee had deposited the consideration in the capital gains account in two tranches – ₹30 crores on 28.07.2011 and ₹60 crores

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

The Prl Commissioner of Income Tax (Exemptions) vs. Institute of Development and Research in Banking Technology

Bench: ABHINAND KUMAR SHAVILI,V RAMASUBRAMANIAN

6. Subsequently, the AO4 reopened the assessment for the year 2008-09 under Section 147 of the Act on the premise that during the assessment proceedings for A.Y. 2009-10, assessee had claimed exemption in respect of the Nuclear Power Corporation Limited Tax free bonds under Section 10(23G) of the Act and the said Section was omitted by Finance

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