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

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

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

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

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

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 vs. M/s. Nirmala Constructions

The appeal stands dismissed

Bench: Cit(A) After The Amendment U/S. 80P(2)(A)(Iii) Of The Act? Iv) Whether, In The Facts & Circumstances Of The Case The

disallowance. He further submits that the interest income has been earned from short-term deposits with Co-operative Banks and Co-operative Societies and is fully exempted u/s 80P(2)(d). The CTT(A), in the subsequent assessment year, i.e., assessment year 1993-94, has allowed the same. The reliance was also placed upon the judgement of Hon'ble Punjab

The Director of Income Tax-(Exemptions), vs. Vasavi Academy of Education

Bench: ANIS,SANJAY KUMAR

2) read with section 13(i)(e) of the PC Act. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that this petitioner is the wife of a public servant and in the charge-sheet, the - 4 - petitioner has been shown as an accused with her husband that she abetted her husband in acquiring disproportionate assets. It was submitted that the petitioner

AD-AGE OUTDOOR ADVERTISING P LTD., HYDERABAD. vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONEER OF INCOME TAX, HYDERABAD.

Bench: T.VINOD KUMAR,M.S.RAMACHANDRA RAO

2. The relevant assessment years are 2002-03, 2003-04, 2004-05, 2005-06 and 2007-08. 3. For brevity the facts of the case involving assessment year 2002-03 are being considered herein. 4. By way of instant appeal under Section 260-A of Income Tax Act, 1961, (for short, ‘the Act’), the assessee has assailed order dated

The Commissioner of Incoe Tax III, vs. Raj Breeders and Hatcheries (PVT) Liited,

Bench: RAMESH RANGANATHAN,M.SATYANARAYANA MURTHY

2. The relevant assessment years are 2002-03, 2003-04, 2004-05, 2005-06 and 2007-08. 3. For brevity the facts of the case involving assessment year 2002-03 are being considered herein. 4. By way of instant appeal under Section 260-A of Income Tax Act, 1961, (for short, ‘the Act’), the assessee has assailed order dated

Commissioner of income tax, vs. M/s. R.K. Palace,

Bench: RAMESH RANGANATHAN,M.SATYANARAYANA MURTHY

2. The relevant assessment years are 2002-03, 2003-04, 2004-05, 2005-06 and 2007-08. 3. For brevity the facts of the case involving assessment year 2002-03 are being considered herein. 4. By way of instant appeal under Section 260-A of Income Tax Act, 1961, (for short, ‘the Act’), the assessee has assailed order dated

Commissioner of Income Tax-I vs. Agricultural Market Committee

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

2. The relevant assessment years are 2002-03, 2003-04, 2004-05, 2005-06 and 2007-08. 3. For brevity the facts of the case involving assessment year 2002-03 are being considered herein. 4. By way of instant appeal under Section 260-A of Income Tax Act, 1961, (for short, ‘the Act’), the assessee has assailed order dated

PRL COMMR OF INCOME TAX, TIRUPATI, CHITTOOR DIST vs. V DWARAKANATH REDDY, CHITTOOR

The appeals are hereby dismissed

Bench: RAMESH RANGANATHAN,KONGARA VIJAYA LAKSHMI

B&R) for public use. (n) Making payment of street light bills for various schemes of trust per year (free of cost). (o) Grant of Rs.1.25 Lakhs to “Deaf and dumb school” Bathinda vide Resolution No.11, dated 14.04.2007 for the welfare of such handicap students. (p) Land reserved for “Yatri Niwas” in Bathinda near to New Bus stand

COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, vs. M/S G.R.K.PRASAD AND OTHERS

In the result, for the above reasons, we set aside the orders

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

b) of sub-section (2) of Section 10 of the Act requires the Commissioner to assess the amount of tax due from the dealer and does not impose any liability as to “an order in writing”. In spite of these differences, the two provisions are substantially the same and impose on the assessing authority a duty to assess

COMMISSISONER OF I.T. RAJAHMUNDRY vs. M/S.Y RAMAKRISHNA AND OTHERS

In the result, for the above reasons, we set aside the orders

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

b) of sub-section (2) of Section 10 of the Act requires the Commissioner to assess the amount of tax due from the dealer and does not impose any liability as to “an order in writing”. In spite of these differences, the two provisions are substantially the same and impose on the assessing authority a duty to assess

Commissioner of Income Tax, vs. M/s Y.Ramakrishna and Others

In the result, for the above reasons, we set aside the orders

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

b) of sub-section (2) of Section 10 of the Act requires the Commissioner to assess the amount of tax due from the dealer and does not impose any liability as to “an order in writing”. In spite of these differences, the two provisions are substantially the same and impose on the assessing authority a duty to assess

The Commissioner of Income Tax vs. M/s.G.V.Krishna Reddy AND Others

In the result, for the above reasons, we set aside the orders

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

b) of sub-section (2) of Section 10 of the Act requires the Commissioner to assess the amount of tax due from the dealer and does not impose any liability as to “an order in writing”. In spite of these differences, the two provisions are substantially the same and impose on the assessing authority a duty to assess

The commissioner of Income Tax vs. M/s.M.Narayana Choudary and Others

In the result, for the above reasons, we set aside the orders

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

b) of sub-section (2) of Section 10 of the Act requires the Commissioner to assess the amount of tax due from the dealer and does not impose any liability as to “an order in writing”. In spite of these differences, the two provisions are substantially the same and impose on the assessing authority a duty to assess

The Commissioner of income tax, vs. M/s.Y.Ramulu and Others

In the result, for the above reasons, we set aside the orders

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

b) of sub-section (2) of Section 10 of the Act requires the Commissioner to assess the amount of tax due from the dealer and does not impose any liability as to “an order in writing”. In spite of these differences, the two provisions are substantially the same and impose on the assessing authority a duty to assess

COMMISSIONER OFINCOEMETAX vs. M/S. V.SATYANARAYANA AND OTHERS

In the result, for the above reasons, we set aside the orders

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

b) of sub-section (2) of Section 10 of the Act requires the Commissioner to assess the amount of tax due from the dealer and does not impose any liability as to “an order in writing”. In spite of these differences, the two provisions are substantially the same and impose on the assessing authority a duty to assess

The Commissioner of Income tax vs. M/s.V.Satyanrayana AND Others

In the result, for the above reasons, we set aside the orders

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

b) of sub-section (2) of Section 10 of the Act requires the Commissioner to assess the amount of tax due from the dealer and does not impose any liability as to “an order in writing”. In spite of these differences, the two provisions are substantially the same and impose on the assessing authority a duty to assess