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-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

PRL COMM OF INCOME TAX-2, HYDERABAD vs. M/S NUZIVIDU SWATHI COASTAL CONSORTIUM, HYDERABAD

In the result, the appeal is disposed of

Bench: M.GANGA RAO,RAMESH RANGANATHAN

Section 37(1) of the Act has 11 also not been examined. The issue with regard to the claim of the assessee under Section14A of the Act has not been adjudicated. 7. We therefore, quash the order passed by the tribunal insofar as it pertains to disallowance of the claim of bad debts to the sum of Rs.4,86,14

Commissioner of Income Tax vs. M/s.K.Seetha Ramaiah AND Others

The appeal stands dismissed

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

disallowed by the A.O. and confirmed by CIT(A) and whether the finding in respect of the above additions is perverse? 3. “Whether on the facts and circumstances of the case, the learned ITAT was right and justified in holding that Rs. 16 Lac had flown back from unexplained lease payments and whether the finding in respect of the above

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

PROGREESIVE CONSTRUCTIONS LIMITED vs. JT. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX

Bench: C.V. BHASKAR REDDY,UJJAL BHUYAN

Section 1a8(sz;) o[ the Act, assessing officer computed t zol trn ltz 5 the total incor,re of the assessee at Rs.2,16,89,170.00. Flowever, after adjustmerrt of the refund for earlier assessment y3ars, the amount payabl,: bythe assessee was quantified at Rs.95,690.00. 7. Against rhe aforesaid order of assessment, assessee preferred appeal before r he Commissioner

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

The appeal is disposed of

14 applied its mind on the issue of allowance of deduction under Section 80IB(10) of the Act and application of income under Section 11 of the Act. Therefore, it has been held that the order passed by the Assessing Officer is erroneous and is prejudicial to the interest of the revenue. The Tribunal by placing reliance on the decision

THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX vs. K.VENKATESWARLU

Accordingly they are dismissed

Bench: V.ESWARAIAH,K.G.SHANKAR

Section 10 (14) of the Act was disallowed, against which, the application filed under Section 154 of Act before the Income

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

Bench: RAMESH RANGANATHAN,M.SATYANARAYANA MURTHY

14 of investment and cost of requisition are distinct concepts. Therefore the word ‘incurred’ in Section 14A of the Act have to be read in the context of the scheme of the Act and if so read, it is clear that it disallows

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

The appeal of the assessee is allowed

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

disallowance of interest under Section 36(1)(iii) pertaining to the sister concerns upheld by the DIVYANSHI 2023.03.03 14:55 I attest

The Director of Income Tax (Exemptions) vs. G Pulla Reddy Chritable Trust

In the result, the orders passed by the Commissioner of

Bench: CHALLA KODANDA RAM,G.CHANDRAIAH

disallowance under Section 80C of the Act and to adopt the guideline value as per Section 50C of the Act after providing an opportunity of hearing to the assessee. The assessee thereupon filed an appeal before the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (hereinafter referred to as 'the tribunal' for short). The tribunal by an order dated 28.11.2014 dismissed the appeal preferred

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

Bench: ABHINAND KUMAR SHAVILI,V RAMASUBRAMANIAN

disallowed the deduction and added back the amount. 6 [2012[25 taxmann.com 200 (SC) - Para 13 to 15 & 22 7 [1979]2 taxmann.com 197(SC) - Para 14 8 [2020]117 taxmann.com 244 (SC) 9 [2021]123 taxmann.com 468 (Karnataka) - Para 12 to 14 I.T.A No.71/2017 C/W I.T.A No.785/2017 12 14. We have carefully considered rival submissions and perused the records

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

COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX vs. M/S K.VENKATESWARA RAO

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

section 143(3) after making various additions and disallowances. Being aggrieved by the additions and disallowances made by the Assessing Officer, the apepllant preferred first appeal before the learned CIT(Appeals) who granted partial relief to the appellant. 2.1 Being aggrieved by the order passed by the learned Page 2 of 14

Kuchipudi Krishna Kishore vs. The DCIT

Accordingly the appeals deserves to be allowed by setting aside the impugned

Bench: P.SAM KOSHY,N.TUKARAMJI

disallowance of the assessee claimed for deduction. Further the aspect raised by the appellant I 6 l'il.l\\IIil tIl \. :rl.:'):Ntrt ji'- was discussed and determined threadbare by the forums below Hence no tenable ground is made out for interference in appeal. 10. The submissions of the learned counsel are duly considered and the materials on record are perused

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

The appeal is disposed of

disallowance under Section 36(1)(ii), the Tribunal has not recorded or given any finding. The arguments raised by the appellant-assessee on the said aspects have not been considered. 14

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

Bench: The Learned

section shall apply where.– (a) the assessee,– (i) owns more than one residential house, other than the new asset, on the date of the transfer of the original asset; or” 14. The AO held that the Assessee had more than one residential unit on the date of transfer of the original asset and therefore, disallowed

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

14:18 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document phhc ITA No. 272 of 2015 (O&M) -8- 11. The CIT(A) though factually did not agree with some of the findings recorded by the Assessing Officer but still upheld the disallowance of claim under Section