Principal Commissioner of Income Tax-2 vs. M/s Indur Green Power Private Limited

In the result, all the appeals fail and are hereby

Bench: RAMESH RANGANATHAN,M.SATYANARAYANA MURTHY

Section 2(15) of the Act?. 44. We are dealing with a taxing statute. The intention of the legislature in a taxation statute is to be gathered from the language of the provisions particularly where the language is plain and unambiguous. In a Taxing Act, it is not possible to assume any intention or the governing purpose of the statute

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

The appeals stand dismissed

Section 13 to disallow the expenses of the income as the case may be, if the same is not income

Andhra Pradesh Fibres Limited, vs. Addl. Commissioner of Income Tax,

disallowances are made, the mere absence of the discussion of the provisions of Section 80IB(13) read with Section 80IA

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

Bench: RAMESH RANGANATHAN,KONGARA VIJAYA LAKSHMI

disallowed the aforesaid amount in terms of Section 14A of the Act. A sum of Rs.3,43,28,658/- being 5% thereof was estimated as expenditure incurred for earning such income. 3. The assessee, thereupon, filed an appeal. The Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) by an order dated 31.05.2011 partly allowed the appeal. Being aggrieved, the revenue as well

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

The appeal is disposed of

13. On the question of disallowance under Section 36(1)(ii), the Tribunal has not recorded or given any finding

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

Bench: RAMESH RANGANATHAN,M.SATYANARAYANA MURTHY

13 (3) The provisions of sub-Section (2) shall also apply in relation to a case where an assesee claims that no expenditure has been incurred by him in relation to income which does not form part of the total income under this Act. Provided that nothing contained in this Section shall empower the Assessing Officer either to reassess under

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

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

The appeal of the assessee is allowed

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

13,825/- totalling to Rs.7,12,19,825 - Rs.3,11,22,866/-) as on 31.3.2006. 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

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

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

Bench: The Learned

13. In terms of clause (i) to the proviso to Section 54F(1) of the act, the said section would not apply if the assessee owned more than one residential house. Clause (i) of the proviso to Section 54F of the Act is extracted below: “Section 54F. Capital gain on transfer of certain capital assets not to be charged

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. In view of the observations made by the Supreme court in the case

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-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 dated 14.07.2009 from M/s Mitsubishi. The application was allowed and the additional evidence was taken on record. It was contended by the assessee that the new concern was set up with advance modern machinery at a new place

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

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

Bench: ABHINAND KUMAR SHAVILI,V RAMASUBRAMANIAN

disallowed in the earlier years for non-deduction of tax at source under Section 40(a) of the Act and which were reversed in A.Y. 2008-09, on the ground that the tax in respect of the said amounts were not deducted and paid to the Government. 8. Assessee challenged AO's order in ITA No.45/JCIT-LTU/CIT(A)LTU 13

VENKATESWARA HATCHARIES LTD vs. JT COMMISSIONER OF I.T.[ASSTS]

In the result, appeal fails and is hereby dismissed

Bench: J SREENIVAS RAO,ALOK ARADHE

13-11-1998 in GtR No. V_/4/SR_5. Between: Venkateswara Hatcharies Ltd, Hyderabad with its Regd. office venkateswara House, Hyderabad. ..,APPELLANT AND Joint Commissioner of l.T.[Assts.], Special Range _5, Hyderabad ...RESPONDENT Counsel for the Appeilant: SRl. y. KOTESWARA RAO, COUNSEL REPRESENTING SRI Y. RATNAKAR Counsel for the Respondent: Ms. K. MAMATA CHOUDARY, SENIOR STANDING COUNSEL REPRESENTTNG FOR J.V. PRASAD