VENKATESWARA HATCHARIES LTD vs. JT COMMISSIONER OF I.T.[ASSTS]

In the result, appeal fails and is hereby dismissed

Bench: J SREENIVAS RAO,ALOK ARADHE

Section 154 of the Act disallowed the claim and recomputed the interest under Sections 234A, 2348 and234C of the Act on the basis

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

Bench: RAMESH RANGANATHAN,M.SATYANARAYANA MURTHY

disallowance, which is in relationship with Tax exempt income under Section 14A of the Act. In support of aforesaid submissions, reliance has been placed on decision of the Supreme Court in ‘COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX VS. WALFORT SHARE & STOCK BROKERS (P) LTD.’, (2010) 326 ITR 1, ‘GODREJ & BOYCE MANUFACTURING COMPANY LTD. VS. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME

THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX vs. K.VENKATESWARLU

Accordingly they are dismissed

Bench: V.ESWARAIAH,K.G.SHANKAR

disallowed, against which, the application filed under Section 154 of Act before the Income Tax Officer was also rejected. Against

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

Bench: ABHINAND KUMAR SHAVILI,V RAMASUBRAMANIAN

disallowance under the aforesaid provisions of the Act to which I am of the view that if at all there was any clerical/arithmetical mistake apparent from record then recourse was available to the assessing officer by way of rectification under Section 154

The Commissioner of Income Tax V vs. Smt. Ch. Uma

section 154 of the Act were initiated since the assessing officer noticed an omission to add back the disallowance of Rs.60

Commissioner of Income Tax vs. M/s Ch.Veeraju AND co.

section 154 of the Act were initiated since the assessing officer noticed an omission to add back the disallowance of Rs.60

Commissioner of Income Tax - VI vs. M/s. S.P. Steels

section 154 of the Act were initiated since the assessing officer noticed an omission to add back the disallowance of Rs.60

The Director of Income Tax (Exemptions) vs. G Pulla Reddy Chritable Trust

In the result, the orders passed by the Commissioner of

Bench: CHALLA KODANDA RAM,G.CHANDRAIAH

154 of the Act on 13.12.2012 proposing to bring to charge the business income as capital gains. However, no further action in the matter was taken . 3. Thereafter a notice under Section 263 of the Act was issued by the Commissioner of Income Tax inter alia on the ground that income assessed as income from business in respect of sale

The Commissioner of Income tax vs. M/s. Nirmala Constructions

The appeal stands dismissed

Bench: Cit(A) After The Amendment U/S. 80P(2)(A)(Iii) Of The Act? Iv) Whether, In The Facts & Circumstances Of The Case The

154 is applicable in case of amendment in the Act?” The issue is covered by the decision of this Court in D.B. Income Tax Appeal No. 139/2002 (Commissioner of Income Tax, Bikaner Vs. M/s. Rajasthan Rajya Sahakari Kray Vikray Sangh Ltd.) decided on 1.9.2016 wherein it has been held as under: “2.1 The case of the department is that

Andhra PRadesh Pradesh Fibres Limited vs. Assistant commissioner of Income Tax

In the result, the order passed by the

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

154 of the Act on 27.10.1998. The case was selected for scrutiny. Thereupon notices were issued under Section 143(2) and 143(1) to the assessee. The assessing officer by an order dated 26.03.1999 passed an order of assessment and inter alia quantified the total taxable income at Rs.8,38,38,080/-. 100% Depreciation claimed by the assessee on pollution

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

154 of Cr.P.C. The mere fact that the witness has not mentioned the gun in the hands of one of the persons riding the motorcycle will not make his testimony doubtful. It was laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Rattan Singh v. State of H.P., (1997) 4 SCC 161: 1997 SCC (Cri) 525 that

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

154/- was intimated to the AO with a request that the same be accepted at the time of finalization of the assessment. In the reply dated 17.10.1997 the appellant company took care to enclose revised chart of depreciation as a separate Annexure-v and also requested the AO that the impact of the change in claim of depreciation

Commissioner of Income Tax, vs. M/s Polisetty Somasundaram,

Section 143 (2) of the Act as well as the assessment framed by the Assessing Officer. On the other hand, the AJAY PRASHER 2023.04.10 11:34 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document ITA No.140 of 2013 (O&M) -4- appeal filed by the revenue-department was dismissed. Hence, the present appeal. Vide order dated 25.03.2014 passed

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

In the result, the appeal fails and is hereby dismissed

154/- to tax. The Assessing Officer passed an order dated 16.01.2010 by which a sum of Rs.3,84,40,542/- was 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

Commissioner of Income Tax vs. Agricultural Market Committee

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

disallowed by the Assessing Officer and after verifying the relevant records. Thus, a finding was recorded that the assessee Shivani Gupta 2024.01.19 12:57 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document ITA No.244 of 2011 and ITA No.512 of 2017 4 2024:PHHC:004741-DB had not furnished any inaccurate particulars and the Assessing Officer as well

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

154 ITR 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

The Commissioner of Inccome Tax-III vs. Speectra Shares AND Scrips Pvt Ltd

Bench: RAMESH RANGANATHAN,M.SATYANARAYANA MURTHY

disallowed the claim of the assessee to treat the rental income as income from the business. The said view of the Assessing Officer has been confirmed by the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) in Annexure-B order dated 14.03.2006, and by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (for short 'the Tribunal'), vide order dated 24.08.2007. 3.1 The assessee placed strong reliance