The Commissioner of Income Tax-I vs. M/s Andhra Bank

In the result, the appeal is dismissed

Bench: CHALLA KODANDA RAM,C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY

disallowance under Section 14A read with Rule 8D(2)(i) of the Rules was restricted to Rs.1,10,967/- and disallowance

THE PRL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-II, VISAKHAPATNAM vs. L SURYAKANTHAM, VISAKHAPATNAM

In the result, the appeal fails and is hereby dismissed

Bench: RAMESH RANGANATHAN,KONGARA VIJAYA LAKSHMI

disallowance under Section 14A read with Rule 8D(2)(iii) to the extent of Rs.20,51,175/- and disallowance of Rs.74

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

2 question of law No.3. Thus, this appeal is being heard on the following substantial questions of law:- 1) Whether the learned Tribunal below committed substantial error of law in upholding the disallowance of Rs.44,03,373.68 Paise under Section 14A

M/s.Tata Teleservices Limited vs. Dy. Commissioner of Income Tax

Bench: SUJOY PAUL,NAMAVARAPU RAJESHWAR RAO

2% of above as per Rule 8D 1197581172 X 0.5% 5987905 5987905 Total disallowance [ Aggregate of (i), (ii) &(iii) ] 5,65,64,291 Therefore, an amount of Rs 5,65,64,291/- have to be disallowed u/s 14A read with Rule 8D of I.T.Rules, 1962 and added to the total income of the assessee. However, total expenses debited

PR COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX vs. R SURYANARAYANA

In the result, the appeal filed by the revenue stands

Bench: RAMESH RANGANATHAN,KONGARA VIJAYA LAKSHMI

disallowance under Section 14A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 read with Rule 8D of the Income Tax Rules, 1962 contrary to the provisions of the section? (iv) Whether on the facts and the circumstances of the case, the Learned Tribunal has erred in law as well as in fact and the impugned order is perverse in confirming the order

COMM OF INCOME TAX, HYD vs. M/S. BALAN NATURAL FOOD PRIVATE LTD., HYD

Bench: RAMESH RANGANATHAN,KONGARA VIJAYA LAKSHMI

disallowance made under section 14A of the Act?” 2. The factual background in which the aforesaid substantial questions of law arises

The Commissioner of Income tax III, vs. Biraj Kavar Galada

The appeals are disposed of

Bench: RAMESH RANGANATHAN,M.SATYANARAYANA MURTHY

2. ITA No.100/2010 has also been filed by the revenue, which as admitted on the following substantial questions of law: (i) Whether the tribunal was correct in holding that the estimation of expenditure in respect of administrative or financial cost at 5% of dividend income earned by the Assessing Officer in accordance with Section 14A of the Act cannot

Teh Commissioner of Incoem Tax (Central) vs. Parupati Farms,

The appeal is disposed of

disallowance was warranted under Section 14A of the Act? 2. When the matter is taken up today learned counsel for the parties

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

2) or under Section 37(1) of the Act. The Assessing Officer determined the total income at Rs.4,03,17,086/- and proceeded to determine the expenditure of Rs.13,20,338/- as having incurred in relation of income received by way of dividend. 5 3. The assessee thereupon filed an appeal before Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals

Commissioner of Income Tax-III, vs. M/s Sree Rayalaseema Green Energy Limited,

Section 14A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 and the second issue relates to disallowance of provision for current liabilities of Rs.2,51,96,577/-. 2

PRL COMMISSOER OF INCOME TAX vs. SRISURAM VENKATESWARA REDDY

In the result, appeal filed by the revenue fails and is

Bench: RAMESH RANGANATHAN,KONGARA VIJAYA LAKSHMI

2. Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal is right in law in setting aside disallowance made under Section 14A

The Commissioner of the Income Tax IV vs. Satya Prasad Anagani,

In the result, we do not find any merit in the

2. Facts leading to filing of the appeal briefly stated are that the assessee is engaged in business of investment and sale of filtration, equipment and spares and service. The assessee filed the return of income on 26.10.2007 for Assessment Year 2007-08 and declared a total income of Rs.80,93,859/-. The Assessing Officer by an order dated

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

2) and (3) inserted in Section 14A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 with effect from April 1,2007 and Rule 8D inserted in the Income Tax Rules 1962 on March 24, 2008 was procedural and retrospective and were applicable for the assessment year 2003-2004? 3. Whether the Tribunal below committed substantial error of law in directing the Assessing

The Principal Commissioner of Income Tax vs. M/s.Midwest Granites Private Limited

Appeal stands dismissed accordingly

Bench: RAMESH RANGANATHAN,KONGARA VIJAYA LAKSHMI

2. Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, Tribunal is right in law in setting aside the disallowances made under Section 36(1) (viia) and also (viii) by relying upon its earlier orders passed for the assessment years 2009-10 to 2011-12? 3. Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, Tribunal

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

M/s. Pact Securities AND financial Services Ltd., vs. The Commissioner of Income Tax-1

In the result appeal is disposed of

Section 14A of the Act? (b) The Tribunal ought to have held that no disallowance was warranted u/s. 14A of the Act? 9.3. Whether on the facts, in the circumstances and on the grounds urged, the Tribunal ought to have held that the Appellant was not liable to MAT?” 2

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

In the result, the appeal fails and is hereby

2. Whether, on the facts and circumstances of the case, the Tribunal is right in law in holding that assesssee is eligible for deduction of the claim of expenditure/liability to an extent of Rs.1,35,73,930/- in respect of excise transport fees even though the same was not claimed in original return and assessing authority has not made

The Commissioner of Income Tax IV vs. M/s. Nav Bharat Enterprises Limited

disallowance of deduction under section 14A made by assessing authority even though the same is in accordance with law? (12) Whether the order of the tribunal can be said as perverse in nature as the tribunal has relied on its earlier decisions which have not reached finality since appeals preferred by Revenue under section 260A against those orders