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

3 1961 on the income from dividends (full amount of dividend – interest on borrowed capital utilized for investment in units of UTI) as against the claim of the assessee for deduction under Section 80M of the Act, 1961 on the full amount of dividend; and ordered for interest under Section 201(1A). The assessing officer also made certain additions/disallowances

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

The appeals are allowed

Bench: N.TUKARAMJI,UJJAL BHUYAN

153- C of the Act as if the reassessment is challenged based on HCJ & NTRJ I.T.T.A.Nos.259 of 2022 & batch 4 the material recovered at the time of search of a group concern? 3. Whether the Tribunal failed to appreciate that the reasoning given in appeal of Indur Developers and Agencies Private Limited (ITA No.672/Hyd/2020 dated 21.3.2022) formed the basis

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

The appeals are allowed

Bench: N.TUKARAMJI,UJJAL BHUYAN

153- C of the Act as if the reassessment is challenged based on HCJ & NTRJ I.T.T.A.Nos.259 of 2022 & batch 4 the material recovered at the time of search of a group concern? 3. Whether the Tribunal failed to appreciate that the reasoning given in appeal of Indur Developers and Agencies Private Limited (ITA No.672/Hyd/2020 dated 21.3.2022) formed the basis

PRL COMMR OF INCOME TAX, TIRUPATI, CHITTOOR DIST vs. V DWARAKANATH REDDY, CHITTOOR

The appeals are hereby dismissed

Bench: RAMESH RANGANATHAN,KONGARA VIJAYA LAKSHMI

153 and upheld the order of CIT which cancelled the registration while passing an order u/s 12AA(3) of the Act, which judgment in Jammu Developmnet Authority has been upheld firstly by Hon'ble J&K High Court in ITA No. 164 of 2012 vide its order dated 07.11.2013 and also by Hon'ble Supreme Court in Special Leave

Principal Commissioner of Income Tax-2 vs. M/s Indur Green Power Private Limited

In the result, all the appeals fail and are hereby

Bench: RAMESH RANGANATHAN,M.SATYANARAYANA MURTHY

153 ITR 521 AP. 24. Ms. Bhatt, thereafter, submitted that the registration of the company under Section 12A of the Act will also not make the assessee automatically eligible to seek exemption under Section 11 of the Act. The eligibility or otherwise of exemption shall have to be decided at the time of the assessment. Ms. Bhatt, in support

The Commissioner of Income Tax (Central) vs. K. V. Srinivasa Rao

153: 1975 SCC (Cri) 427: AIR 1975 SC 1252]; Sone Lal v. State of U.P. [(1978) 4 SCC 302: 1978 SCC (Cri) 587: AIR 1978 SC 1142]; Gurnam Kaur v. Bakshish Singh [1980 Supp SCC 567: 1981 SCC (Cri) 496: AIR 1981 SC 631].) 30. It was held in Sat Pal v. State of Punjab, 1995 Supp

M/s. Kamma Sangaham, vs. The Director of Income -Tax (Exemptions),

Section 263 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 [hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act 1961’]. 4. In appeal, the CIT(A) upheld the order passed by the assessing officer, which was also affirmed by the Tribunal in appeal filed by the assessee. The assessee carried the matter to this Court in ITA No.271 of 2005, which was disposed

Mr. K.S.N.Raju vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax,

Bench: ANIS,SANJAY KUMAR

disallowing the same. Whereas; on account of failure to take into consideration the evidence of the prosecution as regard the remaining accused, she prays to allow Criminal Appeal Nos. 419 and 420 of 2016. 7. This being the first Appellate Court, as required by law we undertook the exercise of re-appreciating, re-examining and re-analyzing of prosecution evidence