Commissioner of Income Tax-2, vs. Agricultural Market Committee,

The appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: V.V.S.RAO,SANJAY KUMAR

115/- duly accounted in the sundry debtors of Rs.2,53,03,064/- and Rs.49,38,930/- is recoverable against sale of land and building from Shri A.S.Bhatia. The major component of Rs.2,19,82,821/- is an advance for setting up Biotechnology Plant at Dera Bassi to subsidiary company.” Aggrieved by the order passed

COMMR OF INCOME TAX HYD vs. M/S.TAHER ENGG CORP. SECBAD

Bench: The Commissioner (Appeals). Through Order, Dated 04.12.1991, The Commissioner Allowed The Appeal & It Was Held That The Applicant Is Entitled To Treat The Unabsorbed Depreciation As Loss. Thereupon, The Department Carried The Matter In Appeal By Filing Ita.No.728/Hyd/1992 Before The Tribunal. The Tribunal Allowed The Appeal Through Its Order, Dated 28.08.1995 & Took The View That The Unabsorbed Depreciation Cannot Be Treated As Loss For The Purpose Of Section 115-J Of The Act.

disallowed the unabsorbed loss of the earlier Assessment Years. Aggrieved by that, the applicant filed an appeal before the Commissioner (Appeals). Through order, dated 04.12.1991, the Commissioner allowed the appeal and it was held that the applicant is entitled to treat the unabsorbed depreciation as loss. Thereupon, the department carried the matter in appeal by filing ITA.No.728/Hyd/1992 before

The Pr. Commissioner of Income-tax vs. D.L.V. Sridhar

Bench: D.V.S.S.SOMAYAJULU,RAMESH RANGANATHAN

115 JB of the Act. 3. The respondent assessee had two units: One unit was located in a ITA No.365/2018 Page 2 of 9 non-STPI zone and hence its income was taxable. The other unit was located in a STPI zone in Gurgaon and its income was exempted under Section 10-A of the Act. The STPI unit

Commissioner of Income Tax [TDS] vs. The Executive Engineer

In the result, these appeals fail and are

Bench: RAMESH RANGANATHAN,M.SEETHARAMA MURTI

section 115 JB of Act? 8. Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal erred in allowing the relief with regard to losses which were due to operational mistakes, related mainly to ATM transactions of customer and that loss is essential capital loss incurred for operational purposes? 9. Whether on the facts

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

disallowing interest on the ground that interest payments had not been debited to the profit and loss account and there is no direct nexus between the interest paid to term lenders and the interest earned from other sources. It is further submitted that the interest income accrued from the monies kept in the fixed deposits and nexus between the deposit

Commissioner of Income Tax, vs. M/s Polisetty Somasundaram,

disallowance of Rs.5,60,207/- and the appeal of the assessee was pending before CIT (A) and as per the CBDT instructions contained in Scrutiny Guidelines for F.Y. 2007-08 in clause 2 (v) (b) provided that all cases in which an appeal was pending before the CIT (A) against an addition/disallowance of Rs.5 lakhs or above, or the Department

The Commissioner of Income Tax (Central) vs. K. V. Srinivasa Rao

disallowed. These were put during the cross-examination of Bankey, PW 30. They are: Q. Did you state to the investigating officer that the gang rolled the dead bodies of Nathi, Saktu and Bharat Singh and scrutinized them, and did you tell him that the face of Asa Ram resembled that of the deceased Bharat Singh? Q. Did you state

Kuchipudi Krishna Kishore vs. The DCIT

Accordingly the appeals deserves to be allowed by setting aside the impugned

Bench: P.SAM KOSHY,N.TUKARAMJI

disallowance. 6. On appeal. the Commissioner of lncome Tax (Appeals)_lll, Hyderabad vide order dated 30.03.2005 held that as per Section 10(33) of the Act the dividend income was no more taxabre and as per provrsions of Section 'r44 of the Act the investment in shares is to earn dividend income. This fact is sufficient to hold that

THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX HYD vs. M/S SOUTHERN PLANT AIDS P LTD

The appeal is disposed of answering the question in

Bench: CHALLA KODANDA RAM,G.CHANDRAIAH

115 OF 2001 JUDGMENT:- (per Hon’ble Sri Justice Challa Kodanda Ram) This appeal is preferred by the Revenue, against the order dated 29.09.2000 in I.T.A. No.220/Hyd/95 passed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Hyderabad Bench “A” (in short “the Tribunal”). The present case is pertaining to the assessment year 1991-1992. 2) This appeal is filed at the instance

Commissioner of Income Tax vs. M/s.K.Seetha Ramaiah AND Others

The appeal stands dismissed

Bench: V.V.S.RAO,RAMESH RANGANATHAN

disallowed by the A.O. and confirmed by CIT(A) and whether the finding in respect of the above additions is perverse? 3. “Whether on the facts and circumstances of the case, the learned ITAT was right and justified in holding that Rs. 16 Lac had flown back from unexplained lease payments and whether the finding in respect of the above