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

Bench: : The Hon’Ble Justice Surya Prakash Kesarwani & The Hon’Ble Justice Rajarshi Bharadwaj Date : 10Th April, 2024. Appearance: Mr. J. P. Khaitan, Senior Advocate Mr. Sanjay Bhowmick, Advocate Ms. Swapna Das, Advocate … For The Appellant. Ms. Smita Das De, Advocate … For The Respondent. 1. Heard Sri J. P. Khaitan, Learned Senior Advocate Assisted By Sri Sanjay Bhowmick, Learned Counsel For The Appellant/Assessee & Ms. Smita Das De, Learned Senior Standing Counsel For The Respondent. 2. The Assessment Years Involved In The Present Appeal Are Assessment Year 1999-2000 & Assessment Year 2000-01. By Order Dated 16.08.2012, This Appeal Was Admitted On The Following Substantial Questions Of Law :-

148. Therefore, I find force behind the arguments of the appellant that the appellant should not 7 suffer for the fault of the Assessing Officer who has not issued 143(2) notices for taking the assessment under scrutiny. Further, though the assessment was completed under section 143(3) read with section 147 but for practical purposes it was first scrutiny

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

PROGREESIVE CONSTRUCTIONS LIMITED vs. JT. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX

Bench: C.V. BHASKAR REDDY,UJJAL BHUYAN

Section 148. It has been clarified that it is only the under-assess ment which is set aside and not the entire assessment where reassessment proceedings are initiated, An assessee cannot resist validly initiated reassessment proceedings merely by showing that other income u4rich had been assessed originallywas too high figure. Clainx which have been disallowed

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

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 read with Section 148

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

Bench: A.SHANKAR NARAYANA,V RAMASUBRAMANIAN

148 and the basis for reopening the assessment was not tenable. 7. As against the said order, the Revenue filed a further appeal to the Tribunal. The Tribunal dismissed the appeal along with two other appeals relating to the assessment years 2005-2006 and 2006-2007. Therefore, the Revenue is before us. 8. The substantial questions of law, with which

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

Bench: The Learned

disallowance under Section 54F of the Act in terms of the order dated 18.03.2019 passed under Section 250 of the Act. The Assessee being aggrieved by the learned CIT(A)’s order preferred an appeal before the learned ITAT [being ITA 3426/Del/2019], which was allowed by the learned ITAT by the impugned order. The present appeal by the Revenue

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

Bench: ABHINAND KUMAR SHAVILI,V RAMASUBRAMANIAN

Section 148 of the Act, the AO, vide order dated 19.12.2013 disallowed the claim made under Section 10(23G) of the Act. In addition

M/s. Sathavahana Ispat Limited vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax

Bench: P.SAM KOSHY,LAXMI NARAYANA ALISHETTY

disallowed the claim on the ground that as per the lease agreement these maintenance charges were to be borne by the tenants. The CIT(A), however, allowed this claim which view of the CIT(A) was affirmed by the Tribunal as well. 2. In so far as the rentals are concerned, the assessee kept on receiving the interim rent

The Commissioner of Income Tax IV vs. Margadarshi Chit Fund Pvt. Ltd.,

The appeal is dismissed

disallowing expenditure, on surmises and conjenctures without finding any discrepancy in Audited books of account?” While allowed the appeals, it has been observed that all the three authorities had acted on surmises and guess work while sustaining the additions of different amounts. Further the authorities were required to have some material to come to the conclusion that the addition

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

Commissioner of Income Tax-V, vs. Sri S.Venkat Reddy, (PAN ALAPS4009A)

In the result, the appeal fails and is hereby

disallowance under Section 14A of the Act. The assessee thereupon filed an appeal before the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), who by an order dated 03.07.2006 partly allowed the appeal preferred by the assessee. The assessee as well as the revenue approached the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal by filing appeals. The Tribunal, 5 by an order dated 17.05.2013 partly allowed

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

148 for the assessment years 1982-83 and 1983-84 vide two separate orders dt.31.3.1989, and for the assessment year 1984-85, he completed assessment on 27-3-1987 under Section 143 (3) of the Act. The assessing officer later passed orders under Section 271 (1) (c) of the Act levying a penalty of Rs.50,000, Rs.62,000 and Rs.70

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

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

Sri Natakari Gopal vs. Income Tax Appellate Tribunal and 2 Others

Bench: : The Hon’Ble Justice T.S. Sivagnanam & The Hon’Ble Justice Hiranmay Bhattacharyya Date : 3Rd January, 2023. Appearance : Mr. Tilak Mita, Adv. ..For Appellant Mr. Pranit Bag , Adv. Mr. A. K. Mishra, Adv. Mr. Debdatta Saha, Adv. …For Respondent Re: Ga/1/2022 The Court:- Heard Mr. Tilak Mitra, Learned Advocate For The Appellant & Mr. Pranit Bag, Learned Advocate For The Respondent. There Is A Delay Of 1126 Days In Filing The Appeal. Though The Reasons Given In The Affidavit Are Not Convincing The Issues Involved In The Appeal Had Been Decided By This Court In Earlier Matters, This Court Exercises Discretion & Condone The Delay In Filing The Appeal. Accordingly, The Application Is Allowed.

section 260A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 [the Act] is directed against the order dated 15.2.2019 passed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal “B” Bench, Kolkata [Tribunal] in ITA No.2467/Kol/2017 for the assessment year 2014-15 the revenue has raised the following substantial question of law for consideration : 2 1. Whether the learned Income Tax Appellate Tribunal erred

NAVA BHARAT FERRO ALLOYS LTD. vs. THE DY.COMMI.OF INCOME TAX HYD.

148)(SC) is not applicable to the present case?” Evidently, the Tribunal has refused to refer the case to this Court. On the CIT approaching it, this Court by its order dt.18.9.2000 directed the Tribunal to state the facts of the case CVNR, J & CKR, J RC 18/2001 5 and refer the question of law extracted supra arising