The Commissioner of Income Tax -V, vs. M/S Secunderabad Club

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

135 ITR 278 (Ker) that the used of the term "derived from" in the relevant provision of the Act indicates the restricted meaning to cover only the profits and gains directly accruing from the conduct of business undertaking. 5. The interest income of Rs. 1,73,09,543/- is in the nature of "income from other sources

Commissioner of Income Tax, vs. Agricultural Market Committee,

In the result, the appeal (ITA/70/2011) is allowed to the extent indicated

Bench: : The Hon’Ble Justice T.S. Sivagnanam & The Hon’Ble Justice Hiranmay Bhattacharyya Date : 20Th March, 2023 Appearance : Mr. C. Bhaskaran, Adv. Ms. Swapna Das, Adv. …For The Appellant. Mr. Aryak Dutt, Adv. …For The Respondent.. The Court : - This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Under Section 260A Of The Income Tax Act (The Act) Is Directed Against The Order Dated September 30, 2009 Passed By The Income Tax Appellate Tribunal “B” Bench, Kolkata In Ita No.2486/Kol/2007 For The Assessment Year 2003-2004. The Appeal Was Admitted On 18.03.2011 On The Following Substantial Questions Of Law:- “1. Whether The Tribunal Below, While Interpreting Section 36(1)(Viia)(A) Of The Income-Tax Act, 1961, Committed Substantial Error Of Law In Holding That Deduction Under The First Proviso Was Alternative To That Under Sub-Clause (A) & That No Deduction Under The First Proviso Was Allowable If Deduction Had Been Allowed Under Sub-Clause (A) Thereby Rejecting The Appellant’S

disallowance under section 14A of the Income-tax Act as per Rules 8D of the Income- tax Rules 1962 without arriving at any finding that the claims of the appellant as regards expenditure incurred in relation to tax free interest income was not correct ? 4. Whether the Tribunal below committed substantial error of law in holding that only provision

M/S. NATIONAL ACADEMY OF CONSTRUCTION, HYD vs. DY. DIRECTOR OF IT- I, HYD

Bench: P.SAM KOSHY,LAXMI NARAYANA ALISHETTY

disallowed deduction for Unit-I At the outset, the appellant wishes to submit that the CIT(A)-XVIII in assessment year 2007-08, vide order dated 15.10.2010 (refer pages 245 to 262 of the paperbook), while allowing in favor of the appellant, held, that Unit - I of the appellant, located at Khasra No.262Mi, Central Hope Town, Selakui Industrial Area, Tehsil

COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-II vs. M/S.TRANSPORT CORPORATION OF INDIA

In the result, we set aside the assessment orders, except to

Bench: P.SAM KOSHY,LAXMI NARAYANA ALISHETTY

135, 136, 137, 139, 140 and 142 of 2014 -------------------------------------------------- DATED THIS THE 19th DAY OF SEPTEMBER, 2014 JUDGMENT ANTONY DOMINIC , J . These are appeals filed by the assessee under the Income-tax Act, challenging the orders of the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals), Kochi and the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal, Kochi concerning the assessment years

The Commisioner of Income TAx-1 vs. Divya Shakti Granites Ltd.,

Bench: RAMESH RANGANATHAN,M.SATYANARAYANA MURTHY

disallowing amendment is well structured and therefore, it should be left with impunity. Let us examine these rival contentions. 11.2 The vehement submission of Sri.S.S.Naganand that the 1st defendant lost the challenge to the trial court’s order rejecting Amendment Application, going by the record, is partly true. Defendant’s W.P.Nos.4956- 4959/2012 (GM-CPC) challenging said order along with