Sri Rajesh Rawtani vs. The Income Tax Officer

The appeals are disposed off in the above

Bench: P.SAM KOSHY,SUDDALA CHALAPATHI RAO

disallowed the claim originally made under section 80G. The reasoning of these two lower authorities was that the claim was unsupported by any documentary proof with regard to the permissibility of the deduction and such being the case, relief of larger deduction as business expenditure could not be granted. 15

COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-TDA vs. M/S.IDEA CELLULAR LTD

Bench: SUJOY PAUL,NAMAVARAPU RAJESHWAR RAO

Section 14A of the Act in the return filed had made disallowance of Rs.1,04,90,253/-. This factual position is not disputed. 3. The Assessing Officer held that Rule 8D of the Income Tax Rules, 1962 (‘Rules’ for short) was mandatory and applying the Rule, the disallowance was increased to Rs.4,15

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

disallowance.” 15. Section 14A of the Act, 1961 provides and makes a provision with respect to expenditure incurred in relation

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

The Commissioner of Income Tax-IV vs. M/s Planet Online Pvt Ltd

Bench: Us Challenging Order Dated 17.04.2013, Passed By The Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Chandigarh Bench 'B'. Chandigarh (Hereinafter Referred To As 'The

disallowance u/s 14A shall have to be calculated even when investment has been made in the course of business of the assessee and the assessee qualifies for deduction u/s 36(1)(iii). So, however, section 14A provides that no deduction shall be allowed in respect of expenditure incurred by the assessee in relating to income which does not form part

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

Bench: SUJOY PAUL,NAMAVARAPU RAJESHWAR RAO

disallowance of Rs.5,06,73,874/- made under Section 14A of the Act read with Rule 8D of the Rules. In any event, the well-established principle is that the manner of treatment of an item concerning expenditure and income in the books of accounts or financial statement does not determine its liability under the Act [ See Kedarnath Jute

Commissioner of Income tax-V, vs. M/s. INTRACK INC,

Section 40(a)(ia) provided for 15 the disallowance of expenses like interest, commission, brokerage, etc. 16.4: Since, this had created

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

Bench: RAMESH RANGANATHAN,M.SATYANARAYANA MURTHY

disallows certain expenditures incurred to earn exempt income from being deducted from other incomes which is includable in the total income for the purposes of chargeability to the tax. It is equally well settled that expenditure is a pay out. In order to attract applicability of section 14A of the Act, there has to be a pay out and return

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

The appeal of the assessee is allowed

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

15 crores and, therefore, the assessee company could in any case, utilize those funds for giving advance to its directors.” 8. Further, the reliance on the following judgments also support the case of the assessee overruling the judgment of ‘Abhishek Industries’, wherein it has been held that the disallowance under Section

Commissioner of Income Tax-V, vs. M/s.Sirveen Control Systems,

The appeals stand dismissed

15) of the Act and proviso to (3 of 4) [ITA-472/2011] Section 12AA which has been amended w.e.f. 1.4.2009 which has been introduced in the Finance Act w.e.f. 1.4.2012, will not apply in the present case inasmuch as all proceedings are for the financial year 2005-06, 2008-09 & 2009-10. However, it is true that

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

Bench: The Learned

disallowed the entire deduction claimed under Section 54F of the Act. It is material to note that the Assessee had also filed objections for re-opening the assessment on the ground that there was no failure on the part of the Assessee to fairly and truly Digitally Signed By:TARUN RANA Signing Date:13.05.2025 15

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. In view of the aforesaid position, we do not think that the order of the Tribunal upholding the order of Commissioner of Income Tax , passed under Section

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

disallowance of claim under Section 10B of the Act. 12. Before the Tribunal, the assessee produced an additional evidence i.e. a letter dated 14.07.2009 from M/s Mitsubishi. The application was allowed and the additional evidence was taken on record. It was contended by the assessee that the new concern was set up with advance modern machinery at a new place

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

Bench: ABHINAND KUMAR SHAVILI,V RAMASUBRAMANIAN

Section 147 of the Act dated 19.12.2013 on the ground that deduction was allowed inadvertently is not sustainable. 12. In substance, Shri Suryanarayana's argument is, the AO had accepted the explanation and passed the assessment order. Therefore, the deductions allowed previously could not be disallowed subsequently on the ground that the same were inadvertently allowed. In support

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

The appeal is disposed of

disallow the deduction as claimed by the assessee under Section 80IB(10) of the Act and to carry out the assessment 5 afresh in accordance with law after affording an opportunity of hearing to the assessee. 3. Being aggrieved, the assessee filed an appeal before the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Tribunal’, for short). The Tribunal

The Commissioner of Income Tax - Central vs. M/s. Himagiri Biotech Pvt. Ltd.,

disallowance under Section 36(1)(iii) cannot be extended to advances given in the AY which are opening balances during the year. 8. The ITAT recorded its conclusions as follows: “14. We have heard the rival contentions. On a careful consideration of the facts and circumstances of the case, a perusal of the papers on record and the orders

The Pr.Commissioner of Income Tax (Central) vs. M/s Vaishnavi Educational Society

In the result, this Cross Objection is allowed and the suit is

Bench: RAMESH RANGANATHAN,M.SATYANARAYANA MURTHY

15 of the Indian Contract Act; and has consequentially, allowed the Owners to recover possession of the plaint schedule properties from the Buyers. 79. I am without even a shred of doubt that the Trial Court has concluded as afore correctly and without any error - either in appreciation of the evidence or in jurisdiction. Since it is now too well

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