COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-TDA vs. M/S.IDEA CELLULAR LTD

Bench: SUJOY PAUL,NAMAVARAPU RAJESHWAR RAO

12,090/- vide order dated 21.2.2014 passed u/s 143(3) of the Act.” 4. The enhanced disallowance was deleted by the Commission of Income Tax (Appeals) observing that the assessee had made disallowance Rs.1,04,90,253/- under Section

COMM OF INCOME TAX, HYD vs. M/S. BALAN NATURAL FOOD PRIVATE LTD., HYD

Bench: RAMESH RANGANATHAN,KONGARA VIJAYA LAKSHMI

12,69,349/- being excess provision claimed under Section 36(vii-a) 5 of the Act. The Assessing Officer disallowed

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

Bench: ABHINAND KUMAR SHAVILI,V RAMASUBRAMANIAN

disallowed the claim made under Section 10(23G) of the Act. In addition, the Assessing Officer also proceeded to bring to tax Rs.5,27,67,000/- and Rs.79,12

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 and could be subjected to tax as income in the hands of the assessee. iii) Section 80M read with Section 80AA of the Act, 1961 provides for deduction @ 60% on the income by way of dividend from a domestic company. Therefore, the entire amount received as dividend was the income from dividend and, as such, deduction under Section

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

The appeals stand dismissed

Bench: RAMESH RANGANATHAN,M.SATYANARAYANA MURTHY

disallowed under Section 43B or under Section 36(1)(va) of the IT Act.” 10. However, SLP is pending against the aforesaid decision, therefore, both the parties will be bound by the decision of the SLP. 11. We have heard learned counsel for the parties. 12

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

Bench: RAMESH RANGANATHAN,M.SATYANARAYANA MURTHY

12 8. We have considered the submissions made by learned counsel for the parties and have perused the record. Before proceeding further, it is apposite to take note of Section 14A of the Act: Section 14A (1) For the purposes of computing the total income under this Chapter, no deduction shall be allowed in respect of expenditure incurred

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

Bench: SUJOY PAUL,NAMAVARAPU RAJESHWAR RAO

Section 36(1)(iii) of the Act. In this context, our attention was drawn to the following parts of the order passed by the CIT(A): “5.4…The above facts show that appellant has made Long Term Investment of Rs.119,75,81,172/- by taking the loan of Rs.119,00,00,000/- on which it has paid interest of Rs.5

The Commissioner of Inccome Tax-III vs. Speectra Shares AND Scrips Pvt Ltd

Bench: RAMESH RANGANATHAN,M.SATYANARAYANA MURTHY

12 and in the case of income from the furniture and fixtures to those mentioned in sub-section (3) and cannot assess the income under Section 9 or Section 10. 8.6 Next in point of time is Malabar and Pioneer Hosiery (P.) Ltd case. As narrated above, the Division Bench laid down, after referring to a few judgements referred

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

disallowance of claim under Section 10B of the Act. 12. Before the Tribunal, the assessee produced an additional evidence i.e. a letter

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

The appeal of the assessee is allowed

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

12. It is evident from record that the amount of Rs.3,11,22,866/- includes sundry debtors of Rs.42,01,115/- 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

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

The appeals stand dismissed

12 and 13 of the I. T. Act were not complied with? 5. Whether under the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Tribunal has committed an error of law by upholding the assessment under u/s. 143(3) dated 30.1.2006 which was clearly erroneous and prejudicial to the interest of revenue?” 3. Recently in the case

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

Bench: The Learned

12. The reassessment proceedings were initiated pursuant to a notice dated 30.03.2017 issued under Section 148 of the Act. The AO had reopened the assessment on the basis that the records of South Delhi Municipal Corporation [SDMC] indicated that the Assessee owned more than one residential property on the date of the transfer of the shares of FIITJEE

The Commissioner of Income Tax I vs. M/s. Bhagiradha Chemicals AND Industries Ltd.,

The appeal is disposed of

12. Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, in the impugned order dated 26th April, 2013, did record and has reproduced the relevant portions of the notice under Section 143(2) wherein details of the commission paid to related parties, etc. were mentioned. However, it did not notice the letters/ replies dated 22nd June, 2009, 2nd July, 2009; and, 17th August, 2009, filed

THE PRL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-II, VISAKHAPATNAM vs. L SURYAKANTHAM, VISAKHAPATNAM

In the result, the appeal fails and is hereby dismissed

Bench: RAMESH RANGANATHAN,KONGARA VIJAYA LAKSHMI

disallowance of Rs.74,08,964/- under the provisions of Section 80JJAA of the Act were proposed. The 5 assessee thereupon filed objections before the Dispute Resolution Panel contesting all the additions. The Dispute Resolution Panel, however rejected the objections preferred by the assessee. The assessee thereupon filed an appeal before the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (hereinafter referred

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

The appeal is disposed of

12. The Tribunal thereafter could not have proceeded to examine the matter on merits after setting aside the order under Section 263 of the Act with reference to Section 13(8) of the Act as the merits of the matter was not the subject matter of the appeal before the Tribunal. In view of preceding analysis, the substantial questions

M/s Kausalya Agro Farms and Developers pvt. ltd vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax

The appeals are allowed

Bench: N.TUKARAMJI,UJJAL BHUYAN

Section 36(1)(iii) of the Act to the extent disallowed by the first appellate authority as well as the validity of the re-assessment proceedings. 12

M/s. Dakshin Infrastructures Private Limited vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax

The appeals are allowed

Bench: N.TUKARAMJI,UJJAL BHUYAN

Section 36(1)(iii) of the Act to the extent disallowed by the first appellate authority as well as the validity of the re-assessment proceedings. 12

Commissioner of Income Tax - II vs. M/s. Healthware Private Limited

In the result, the order passed by the tribunal

disallowed the deduction claimed under Section 80IA(4)(iv)(c) of the Act and held that computation as per normal provisions of the Act is adopted as tax liability. 3. The assessee thereupon filed an appeal before the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), who by an order dated 10.02.2009 dismissed the appeal preferred by the assessee. The assessee thereupon approached