The Director of Income Tax, (Exemptions) vs. Royal Education Society

In the result, the appeal is disposed of

Bench: ANIS,SANJAY KUMAR

Section 147 of the Act determined the income of the assessee at Rs.51,71,70,670/- and made following additions: (a) disallowance

The Commissioner of Income Tax vs. M/s Kaveri Bar AND Restaurant,

Bench: ABHINAND KUMAR SHAVILI,V RAMASUBRAMANIAN

Section 147 of the Act on the ground and by taking a view that the disallowance which was made under

PROGREESIVE CONSTRUCTIONS LIMITED vs. JT. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX

Bench: C.V. BHASKAR REDDY,UJJAL BHUYAN

147 of Incomc Tax Act and the new provisions o[ that Section substitutecl with effect from .i2:: 1.. 01.04.1989 in regard to the scope of words'reason to believe' appearing in the section ? iii. \fltr':ther the lncome Tax Appellate Tribunal is justified in law in disallowing

The Commissioner of Income Tax, vs. M/s. K.C.P.Limited

In the result, the appeal fails and is hereby dismissed

disallowed. The assessee thereupon preferred an appeal before the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), who by an order dated 22.07.2010 dismissed the appeal preferred by the assessee. The assessee thereupon filed an appeal before the Tribunal. The Tribunal, by an order dated 15.07.2011, inter alia held that reopening of the assessment under Section 147

THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-IV vs. M/S QUALITY CARE INDIA LTD

Bench: A.SHANKAR NARAYANA,V RAMASUBRAMANIAN

Section 147 of the Act? 2) Whether on facts and circumstances of the case, the Hon’ble ITAT is correct in not considering the decision of the Apex Court in the case of Raymond Woolen Mills Ltd. Vs. ITO (236 ITR 34)(SC) wherein it was held that in determining the validity of re-assessment proceedings, it has only

M/S.MALLIKARJUNA RICE INDUSTRIES vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER

Bench: N.TUKARAMJI,UJJAL BHUYAN

disallowed d b;rck to the t()r-'il itrcotlre oi tl-ie rs scs';ee u4rile rq the assessmctrt tttrtle r Scctior i4ll'' t o1 the Act' v.Snotdorrc'lsscsstlrgo[licerrsstre.lri<.ticetlnder 1li4 oi the Act on l6'01'lCCl ro ihe;rppe[ant Lg to adcl the otrt st 'rritlir lg :llrlottrlt

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

Bench: ABHINAND KUMAR SHAVILI,V RAMASUBRAMANIAN

disallowance of deduction on reversal of provision in respect of Rs.5,27,67,000/- and Rs.79,12,000/-. 10. On further appeal, the ITAT, vide order dated August 26, 2016 has dismissed ITA No.1124/Bang/2014. 11. Shri Suryanarayana submitted that: • the AO reopened the case under Section 147

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

Bench: The Learned

147 read with Section 143(3) of the Digitally Signed By:TARUN RANA Signing Date:13.05.2025 15:59:36 Signature Not Verified ITA 127/2025 Page 2 of 10 Act. 3. The subject matter of controversy in the appeals before the learned ITAT centres around the Assessee’s claim for deduction under Section 54F of the Act. 4. The Assessee filed

M/s Kausalya Agro Farms and Developers pvt. ltd vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax

The appeals are allowed

Bench: N.TUKARAMJI,UJJAL BHUYAN

147 of the Act is not applicable since there is full and true disclosure of all material facts necessary for assessment? 2. Whether the Tribunal misdirected itself in dealing with a contention based on Section 153-A read with Section 153- C of the Act as if the reassessment is challenged based on HCJ & NTRJ I.T.T.A.Nos.259 of 2022 & batch

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

The appeals are allowed

Bench: N.TUKARAMJI,UJJAL BHUYAN

147 of the Act is not applicable since there is full and true disclosure of all material facts necessary for assessment? 2. Whether the Tribunal misdirected itself in dealing with a contention based on Section 153-A read with Section 153- C of the Act as if the reassessment is challenged based on HCJ & NTRJ I.T.T.A.Nos.259 of 2022 & batch

Commissioner of Income Tax-III., vs. Smt. Chirala Nivedita Reddy

disallowed certain amounts including the exemption claimed under Section 10(29) of the Act, as well as certain categories of income and purchase. (While the matter stood thus, on 17.3.2006, the A.O. issued a reassessment notice, this time alleging that exemption claimed under Section 10(29) was inadmissible. He sought to add back

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

Bench: RAMESH RANGANATHAN,M.SATYANARAYANA MURTHY

147 or pass an order enhancing the assessment or reducing a refund already made or otherwise increasing the liability of the assessee under Section 154, for any assessment year beginning on or before the 1st day of April 2001. 9. From perusal of Section 14A of the Act, it is evident that for the purposes of computing the total income

M/S AVANTHI BUSINESS MACHINES LTD., HYDERABAD. vs. DCIT [ASSTS] CIRCLE -1 [1] HYDERABAD.

Appeal is disposed of

Bench: N.TUKARAMJI,UJJAL BHUYAN

Section 147 of the Act. 5. Insofar the first issue is concerned, assessing officer found that appellant had written off an amount of Rs.1,81,342.00 tou,ards public issue expenses which was debited to its profit and loss account. After making necessary disallowance

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

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

disallowance under Section 14A was not worked out.” 3. In W.P.(C) 2795/2008 (for AY 2005-06) the allegations and grounds of reassessment notice were identical. The AO felt that mixing up of trading sales and absence of unit specific profit and loss accounts led to excess deduction under Section 80IB to the extent

The Commissioner of Income Tax -III vs. Sri T.C. Reddy

The appeal stands dismissed

disallowance of said sum in the hands of the assessee is not justified. 21. "The total consideration paid by the assessee company to acquire 134.3 bighas of land as per the submission of AR is Rs. 119527000/- which includes Rs.75967000/- paid to M/s Mrigiya Electronics Inds. Pvt. Ltd. And balance to the land owners direclty. The AO has considered direct

The Commissioner of income Tax-II vs. M/s.Ideal Industrial Explosives Ltd

Bench: RAMESH RANGANATHAN,M.SATYANARAYANA MURTHY

147 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 ('Act', for short). There are also more than one appeal filed in many of the assessment years. There are also years in which appeals were filed by the Department and the assessee-Bank before the Tribunal, and the Tribunal having held in favour of the assessee-Bank, the Department has filed appeals

Commissioner of Income Tax, vs. M/S Foods Fats and Fertilisers Limited,

The appeals stand dismissed

Bench: RAMESH RANGANATHAN,M.SATYANARAYANA MURTHY

disallowed the claim for loss suffered by the Appellant-assessee in trading of Mustard undertaken through M/s Hari Agro Mills Private Ltd., Jamshedpur despite the same having been duly confirmed by the M/s Hari Agro Mills Private Ltd., Jamshedpur.?” DBITA No. 131/2009, DBITA No. 414/2009 i) Whether the ld. ITAT has erred in having taken the view that the issue

CHENNAKESAVA PHARMACEUTICALS VIJAYAWADA vs. THE COMI.OF INCOMETAX VIJ.

In the result, all the appeals are allowed setting aside the common

Bench: GODA RAGHURAM,M.S.RAMACHANDRA RAO

disallowance is made by the assessing officer and a direction for initiation of penalty proceedings is issued. The said provision is made effective retrospectively with effect from 01-04-1989. As the assessment order for assessment year 1984-85 has been passed on 27.3.1987, prior to 1.4.89, the revenue cannot rely on sub-section (1B) of s.271. Therefore, in view

COMMR.OF INCOME TAX VISAKHAPATNAM vs. SOUTH GLORY INTERNATIONAL P.LTD VISAKHAP

Appeal is disposed of

Section 37 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 in the year in which it is incurred?” TA NO. 18 OF 1999 2 Learned counsel for the appellant contended that for the same assessee, the Department has accepted the claim of the appellant for the years 1987-88, 1988-89 & 1989-90, but only for the years