THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX III, vs. M/S. SAVIJANA SEA FOODS PVT. LTD.,

Appeals of the Revenue are dismissed

Bench: J SREENIVAS RAO,ALOK ARADHE

1 (SC) which has been followed in Hero Cycles v. CIT (2015) 379 ITR 347. The ratio of the decision of the Bombay High Court in CIT v. Lokhandwala Constructions Industries Ltd. (2003) 260 ITR 579 (Bom) was rightly relied upon by the ITAT to allow the plea of the Assessee and treat the said interest payments as revenue expenditure

Commissioner of Income Tax, vs. M/s. Kokivenkateswara Reddy AND others,

Appeals of the Revenue are dismissed

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

1 (SC) which has been followed in Hero Cycles v. CIT (2015) 379 ITR 347. The ratio of the decision of the Bombay High Court in CIT v. Lokhandwala Constructions Industries Ltd. (2003) 260 ITR 579 (Bom) was rightly relied upon by the ITAT to allow the plea of the Assessee and treat the said interest payments as revenue expenditure

M/S.MALLIKARJUNA RICE INDUSTRIES vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER

Bench: N.TUKARAMJI,UJJAL BHUYAN

1 :ar- relevant to the xssessnrent ye'1r L91rl3'99 but the said amor ot renuined outst;rrtclirrg i1s the xpPe lirnt lrad not arne during thc 1.rn'r'iotts rc:rr' -l'llr' -':!on" tt was a iiabiliry in thc [''rl'rrrcr' sheet' r\sst':'sing officer vi,ru' that this etrlotrtrr shotrlcl luve t't t'rr disallowed

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

disallowed the claim and recomputed the interest under Sections 234A, 2348 and234C of the Act on the basis of income determined under Section 154 of the Act. 3 4. Being aggrieved, the assessee filed an appeal The CommissioneroflncomeTax(Appeals)IV,Hyderabadbyan order dated 01.06.1999 dismissed the appeal' Being aggr-ieved' the assessee filed al appeal before the Income Tax Apoellate

THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX vs. K.VENKATESWARLU

Accordingly they are dismissed

Bench: V.ESWARAIAH,K.G.SHANKAR

1) (a) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (for short ‘the Act’) 40% of the incentive bonus towards the claim of exemption under Section 10 (14) of the Act was disallowed, against which, the application filed under Section 154

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, vs. M/s. K.C.P.Limited

In the result, the appeal fails and is hereby dismissed

1) of the Act on 31.10.2006 and a refund of Rs.27,06,17,046/- was issued. Subsequently, the return filed by the assessee was selected for scrutiny and a notice under Section 143(2) of the Act was issued on 25.09.2006. The Assessing Officer scrutinized the details furnished and completed the assessment. An order of assessment was passed under Section

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

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

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

1) of the Act. I.T.A. No.193/12 & Conn. Cases -:20:- 21. There is nothing on record to indicate that there is any element of compensation involved. Even after granting opportunities to the assessee to show the existence of any compensatory element in the penalty, the assessee could not show the existence of such an element in the penalty. In fact

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

1) of the Act. I.T.A. No.193/12 & Conn. Cases -:20:- 21. There is nothing on record to indicate that there is any element of compensation involved. Even after granting opportunities to the assessee to show the existence of any compensatory element in the penalty, the assessee could not show the existence of such an element in the penalty. In fact

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

1) of the Act. I.T.A. No.193/12 & Conn. Cases -:20:- 21. There is nothing on record to indicate that there is any element of compensation involved. Even after granting opportunities to the assessee to show the existence of any compensatory element in the penalty, the assessee could not show the existence of such an element in the penalty. In fact

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

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

Bench: ABHINAND KUMAR SHAVILI,V RAMASUBRAMANIAN

1), KOLKATA & ORS. BEFORE: The Hon’ble JUSTICE MD. NIZAMUDDIN Date : 15th June, 2022 Mr. J.P. Khaitan, Sr. Adv. Ms. Nilanjana Banerjee Pal, Adv. …for the petitioner Mr. Dhiraj Trivedi, Asst. S.G. Mr. Amit Sharma, Adv. …for the respondents The Court: Heard learned counsel appearing for the parties. In this writ petition petitioner has challenged the impugned notice under Section

The Commissioner of Income Tax-IV vs. Nekkanti Sea Foods Limited

The appeal is dismissed without any order as to costs

Bench: P.SAM KOSHY,NARSING RAO NANDIKONDA

Section 115JB of the Act. The Assessing Officer in the assessment order has recorded that the assessee had debited a sum of Rs.31,54,844/- in the computation of income as deferred revenue expense and 10% of the said amount was debited to the profit and loss account as deferred revenue expenditure. The assessee was accordingly asked to justify

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

1), "SHILPASHREE" VIDYARANYA COMPLEX VISHWESWARANAGAR, MYSURU. ... RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. E.I. SANMATHI, ADV.) THIS ITA IS FILED UNDER SECTION 260-A OF I.T. ACT, 1961 ARISING OUT OF ORDER DATED 28.11.2014 PASSED IN ITA 2 NO.269/BANG/2014 FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2009-10, PRAYING TO: (I) FORMULATE THE SUBSTANTIAL QUESTIONS OF LAW STATED ABOVE. (II) ALLOW THE APPEAL AND SET ASIDE

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

1) During the assessment proceedings, the identity and creditworthiness of the parties subscribed share capital remained unproved and the genuineness of the transaction was also unproved, therefore, the capital of Rs.55,00,000/- was treated as income from undisclosed sources of the assessee’s company. (2) No information/details in respect of the share application money amounting to Rs.51

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