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

Bench: ANIS,SANJAY KUMAR

disallowed and similarly, the rent paid by others have been discarded. Without any basis, it is simply stated that the vehicle was purchased by paying Rs.3,50,000/- from out of the ill gotton money in the hands of the husband of the petitioner. It was contended that the father of the petitioner, who is a retired Central Government employee

THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-IV, HYDERABAD vs. M/S NAVA BHARAT VENTURES LTD., HYDERABAD

Bench: P.SAM KOSHY,NARSING RAO NANDIKONDA

disallowance of claim of deduction under Section 80-IA of the Act, 1961. 7. Having consideqed the entire material placed before this Court and also the ratio laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Jindal Steel and Power Limited's case (supra), this Bench opines that there is force in the argument of learned counsel for the respondent

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, vs. Sri Padala Ramakrishna Reddy,

The appeals stand dismissed

Bench: RAMESH RANGANATHAN,M.SATYANARAYANA MURTHY

8. He has contended that the word ‘production’ is to be construed as a wider meaning than ‘manufacture’ and in view of the observations made by the Supreme Court, the view taken by the Tribunal is just and proper. 9. Mr. Mathur has also contended that regarding second issue with regard to ESI and PF, however, the same is covered

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

8 Supreme Court reported in the case of COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX VS. RAJASTAN AND GUJRATI CHARITABLE FOUNDATION reported in (2018) 402 ITR 441 (SC). Therein, the Hon’ble Supreme Court considered a batch of cases on the very same question of law, which also arose in the case of very same Assessee herein. Therein, the question of law considered

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

Bench: RAMESH RANGANATHAN,M.SATYANARAYANA MURTHY

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 by the assessee

The Commissioner of Income Tax [Central] vs. Akula Nageswara Rao

The appeals stand dismissed

Bench: SANJAY KUMAR,GUDISEVA SHYAM PRASAD

13,290/- vide order dated 30.01.2014, Annexure A.1. Aggrieved by the order, the assessee filed an appeal before the Commissioner of Income Tax, (Appeals), [CIT(A)]. Vide order dated 30.12.2014, the CIT(A) deleted the whole addition. Thereafter, it was noticed that the assessee had owned seven units out of which four units were located in certain special category states

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

8. The counsel for appellant submits that this Court has settled the position of law while interpreting Section 80 IA(9) of the IT Act in three recent judgments. The first judgment is M/s Friends Castings (P) Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Income Tax, ITA No. 456 of 2010, decided on ITA No. 312 of 2011 -5- 20.09.2010. 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

8. The assessing officer noted in the assessment order that the interest paid on borrowed capital utilised to earn tax-free interest on bonds is liable to be 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

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

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 I vs. M/s. Bhagiradha Chemicals AND Industries Ltd.,

The appeal is disposed of

8 of 16 to several decisions of the Supreme Court as well as this Court on the scope of Section 263 and it was highlighted that the Assessing Officer had carried out due verification and scrutiny and was satisfied that the bifurcation/apportionment was justified and correct. Under Section 263, fresh adjudication by the Assessing Officer cannot be directed, unless

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

8. Section 10B(2)(ii) & (iii) is quoted below :- Special provisions in respect of newly established hundred per cent export-oriented undertakings. 10B(I). XX XX XX (2) This section applies to any undertaking which fulfills all the following conditions, namely :— (i) XX XX XX (ia) XX XX XX (ii) It is not formed by the splitting

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

8. It is urged that difference between sale consideration and the indexed cost of acquisition represents the actual income of the assessee, which is taxable under Section 45 of the Act as provided under Section 112 of the Act and there is no provision of the Act which prevents the assessee from claiming the indexed cost of acquisition on sale

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

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

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

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

The appeals are allowed

Bench: N.TUKARAMJI,UJJAL BHUYAN

13. Preethi Foods and Villas Private Limited, Khammam. 690/Hyd/2020 2017-18 4. Learned Senior Counsel for the appellant has proposed the following questions as substantial questions of law: 1. Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal is correct in upholding the jurisdiction of the assessing officer in initiating reassessment under Section