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

Bench: SUJOY PAUL,NAMAVARAPU RAJESHWAR RAO

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 Mfg. Co. Ltd. v. Commissioner of Income Tax, (Central

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

17) of the Act, the Company is defined as an Institution, association or body which is or otherwise assessable or assessed as a Company and as such Section 115JB is applicable to assessee Bank for MAT purposes? 4. Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal is right in law in setting aside disallowance

Commissioner of Income Tax - II vs. M/s. Healthware Private Limited

In the result, the order passed by the tribunal

17,415/- under Section 115JB of the Act. The case was selected for scrutiny and notice under Section 143(2) of the Act was 4 issued. The Assessing Officer passed an order under Section 143(3) of the Act on 31.12.2007 and disallowed

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

The appeal is disposed of

disallow the deduction under Section 80IB(10) of the Act is also quashed. We have therefore not expressed any opinion with regard to claim of the assessee for deduction under Section 80IB(10) of 17

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

Bench: RAMESH RANGANATHAN,M.SATYANARAYANA MURTHY

17 of the decision in the case of WALFORT supra, it is pointed out that expenditure is a pay out and pay back is not 10 expenditure in the scheme of Section 14A of the Act. It is further submitted that condition precedent for invoking Section 14A of the Act is pay out. In the instant case, since the assessee

THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-IV, HYDERABAD vs. M/S NAVA BHARAT VENTURES LTD., HYDERABAD

Bench: P.SAM KOSHY,NARSING RAO NANDIKONDA

17,39 1/- under Section 80-IA of the Act, 196 1 in respect of profits from power generation units of different Villages. In support of deduction, the assesse has filed Form No.lO CCB, dated 27.1L.2OO6, for each unit. During the assessment proceedings by the Assessing Officer, the assessee 2 claimed 100% deduction under Se under which the Parties

Commissioner of Income tAx, vs. Sri Padala Ramakrishna Reddy,

The appeals stand dismissed

Bench: RAMESH RANGANATHAN,M.SATYANARAYANA MURTHY

17. In the present case, we have extracted in detail the process undertaken by each of the respondents before us. In the present case, we are not concerned only with cutting of marble blocks into slabs. In the present case we are also concerned with (10 of 12) the activity of polishing and ultimate conversion of blocks into polished slabs

The Commissioner of Income Tax I vs. M/s. Bhagiradha Chemicals AND Industries Ltd.,

The appeal is disposed of

17,141/- on substantive basis, and Rs.10 lacs on protective basis, were made. Income was computed under Section 115JB at Rs.9,85,25,142/-. 4. Commissioner of Income Tax issued a notice under Section 263 of the Act, dated 4th February, 2011, on two grounds. Firstly, commission of Rs.69,53,949/- had been paid to the two Managing Directors

The Commissioner of Income- Tax - V, vs. M/s. Krishnaveni Constructions,

Bench: RAMESH RANGANATHAN,M.SATYANARAYANA MURTHY

disallowing the loss appears to be erroneous. 17. It is apt to refer to the decision of the Hon’ble Apex Court in Commissioner of Income-tax, Delhi vs. Woodward Governor India (P.) Ltd., reported in (2009) 179 Taxman 326 (SC), wherein it has been enunciated that the loss suffered by an assessee on account of foreign exchange difference

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

Bench: The Learned

disallowance under Section 54F of the Act in terms of the order dated 18.03.2019 passed under Section 250 of the Act. The Assessee being aggrieved by the learned CIT(A)’s order preferred an appeal before the learned ITAT [being ITA 3426/Del/2019], which was allowed by the learned ITAT by the impugned order. The present appeal by the Revenue

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

disallowed under Section 40(a) of the Act. Further, assessee did not make any payment and reversed the provision during the year ending March 31, 2008. In substance, assessee's case is, the original provision was not allowed as deduction and therefore reversal of the same cannot be taxed again. I.T.A No.71/2017 C/W I.T.A No.785/2017 13 16. Shri. Suryanarayana contended

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

17-05-2013, for AY 2007-08; 2008-09 and 2009-10, in cross appeals of the assessee and the revenue ITA Nos.512/2013, 516/2013, 517/2013, 518/2013, 519/2013 & 526/2013 Page 4 (in ITA No. 63-64/Del/2013; Nos. 264-266/Del/2013 and ITA No. 635/Del/2013). 2. The revenue urges the following substantial questions of law for the decision of this Court

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

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) who by an order dated 20.02.2015 dismissed the appeal preferred by the assessee. The assessee thereupon filed an appeal before Income

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

Bench: ABHINAND KUMAR SHAVILI,V RAMASUBRAMANIAN

disallowance causing alleged escapement of income. Mr. Khaitan, learned senior counsel appearing for the assessee/petitioner relies on a decision of this Court in the case of Calcutta Club Ltd. vs. Income-Tax Officer and Ors. reported in (2020) 426 ITR 157 (Cal) particularly paragraph 30 of the said judgment which is quoted hereunder : “30. Considering the submission of the parties

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

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

In the result, the appeal fails and is hereby

17-05-2013 PASSED BY THE ITAT, ‘A’ BENCH, BANGALORE, AS SOUGHT FOR, IN THE RESPONDENT-ASSESSEE'S CASE, IN APPEAL PROCEEDINGS NO.ITA NO.5534/MUM/06 AND ITA NO.5655/MUM/06. THIS I.T.A. COMING ON FOR HEARING, THIS DAY, ALOK ARADHE J., DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: JUDGMENT Mr.Jeevan J.Neeralagi, learned counsel with Mr.E.I.Sanmathi, learned counsel for the revenue. Mr.T.Suryanarayana, learned counsel for the assessee

The Commissioner of Income tax - III, vs. M/s. Namala Estates,

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

Bench: RAMESH RANGANATHAN,M.SATYANARAYANA MURTHY

disallowance of a portion of deduction claimed under Section 80IB of the Act. Accordingly, the appeal preferred by the assessee was partly allowed. In the aforesaid factual background, this appeal has been filed by the revenue. 4. Learned counsel for the revenue while inviting our attention to orders passed by the Assessing Officer, Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals