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

Bench: RAMESH RANGANATHAN,M.SATYANARAYANA MURTHY

Section 143 [3] of the Act which are as under: 1. Disallowance towards R&D Rs.1,18,78,000/- 2. Disallowance

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

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

The appeal of the assessee is allowed

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

18,645/- Interest on hire purchase car loan: 46,329/- Interest on unsecured loan: Nil Total 14,69,103/- 10. The AO has nowhere in his order established that the appellant company had raised interest bearing loan and diverted them to partners/parties without charging interest. 11. I further find that Rs.3,11,22,866/- was financed by the company from

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

In the result, the order passed by the tribunal

disallowed the deduction claimed under Section 80IA(4)(iv)(c) of the Act and held that computation as per normal provisions of the Act is adopted as tax liability. 3. The assessee thereupon filed an appeal before the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), who by an order dated 10.02.2009 dismissed the appeal preferred by the assessee. The assessee thereupon approached

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

The appeals stand dismissed

Bench: RAMESH RANGANATHAN,M.SATYANARAYANA MURTHY

18. In the case of Commissioner of Income Tax v. Sesa Goa Ltd. reported in MANU/SC/1123/2004 : 271 ITR 331 (SC), the meaning of the word "production" came up for consideration. The question which came before this Court was whether the ITAT was justified in holding that the assessee was entitled to deduction under Section 32A of the Income

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

The appeal is disposed of

disallow the commission payment made to the said directors and the fresh assessment order u/s143(3) of I.T. Act may be passed accordingly.” (emphasis supplied) 7. On the second issue, the Commissioner of Income Tax referred to the total figure of expenses claimed against the manufacturing unit and the expenses booked against trading activities. In paragraph 5 the Commissioner accepted

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

18 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document phhc ITA No. 272 of 2015 (O&M) -8- 11. The CIT(A) though factually did not agree with some of the findings recorded by the Assessing Officer but still upheld the disallowance of claim under Section

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

The appeal is dismissed

Bench: P.SAM KOSHY,NARSING RAO NANDIKONDA

disallowance of claim of deduction under Section 8O-lA of the Act, 1961. 7. Having considered the entire material placed before this Court and also the ratio laid down by the Hon'lcle Supreme Court in Jindal Steel and Power Limited's case (supra), this Bench opines that there is force in the argument of learned counsel for the respondent

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

Section 40[a](ia) of the Act is retrospective from the date of insertion of the provision i.e., 1st April 2005 therefore needs to be answered in affirmation. It can be seen that the amendment made by the Finance Act 2010 allows additional time upto the due date of filing of the return in respect of even those instances where

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

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

Section 2(15) of the Act?. 44. We are dealing with a taxing statute. The intention of the legislature in a taxation statute is to be gathered from the language of the provisions particularly where the language is plain and unambiguous. In a Taxing Act, it is not possible to assume any intention or the governing purpose of the statute

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

Bench: : The Hon’Ble Justice Surya Prakash Kesarwani & The Hon’Ble Justice Rajarshi Bharadwaj Date : 10Th April, 2024. Appearance: Mr. J. P. Khaitan, Senior Advocate Mr. Sanjay Bhowmick, Advocate Ms. Swapna Das, Advocate … For The Appellant. Ms. Smita Das De, Advocate … For The Respondent. 1. Heard Sri J. P. Khaitan, Learned Senior Advocate Assisted By Sri Sanjay Bhowmick, Learned Counsel For The Appellant/Assessee & Ms. Smita Das De, Learned Senior Standing Counsel For The Respondent. 2. The Assessment Years Involved In The Present Appeal Are Assessment Year 1999-2000 & Assessment Year 2000-01. By Order Dated 16.08.2012, This Appeal Was Admitted On The Following Substantial Questions Of Law :-

18. Thus, we are of the considered view that there being no original assessment order in the case of the assessee, there was no question of reassessment by the assessing officer. The order passed by the assessing officer was assessment order. The assessee claimed interest as deductible expenditure under Section 43B of the Act 1961 and its admissibility

Commissioner of Income Tax-II, vs. M/S The A.P.Mahesh Coop. Urban Bank Ltd,

In the result, for the above reasons, these appeals fail and

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

disallowed by the assessing officer on the ground that the assessee did not obtain prior approval in respect of investments against statutory reserves as required under Section 46 of the Andhra Pradesh Cooperative Societies Act, 1964 (the Societies Act) and Rule 37(2) of the Andhra Pradesh Cooperative Societies Rules, 1964 (the Societies Rules). The assessing officer came

Commissioner of Income Tax -II vs. The Agrasen Coop. Urban Bank Ltd.,

In the result, for the above reasons, these appeals fail and

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

disallowed by the assessing officer on the ground that the assessee did not obtain prior approval in respect of investments against statutory reserves as required under Section 46 of the Andhra Pradesh Cooperative Societies Act, 1964 (the Societies Act) and Rule 37(2) of the Andhra Pradesh Cooperative Societies Rules, 1964 (the Societies Rules). The assessing officer came

COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-II, HYDERABAD vs. M/s. The A.P.Vardhaman(Mahila)Cooperative Urban

In the result, for the above reasons, these appeals fail and

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

disallowed by the assessing officer on the ground that the assessee did not obtain prior approval in respect of investments against statutory reserves as required under Section 46 of the Andhra Pradesh Cooperative Societies Act, 1964 (the Societies Act) and Rule 37(2) of the Andhra Pradesh Cooperative Societies Rules, 1964 (the Societies Rules). The assessing officer came

The Commissioner of Income Tax-II vs. The Andhra Bank Employees Co.Operative Bank Limited

In the result, for the above reasons, these appeals fail and

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

disallowed by the assessing officer on the ground that the assessee did not obtain prior approval in respect of investments against statutory reserves as required under Section 46 of the Andhra Pradesh Cooperative Societies Act, 1964 (the Societies Act) and Rule 37(2) of the Andhra Pradesh Cooperative Societies Rules, 1964 (the Societies Rules). The assessing officer came

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

Section 36 (1) (iii), there was no question of its being brought to tax for the three assessment years in question. Applying the ratio in CIT v. Sahara India Corporation Ltd, (2000) 296 ITR 295 (Del), it is held that the Revenue could not have taken a different view for these three years, particularly, when advances were not made

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

disallowed and 80% interest on the amount advanced to Madhya Pradesh State Electricity Board to the tune of Rs.40 Lakhs was added. Deduction under Section 80I of the Act to the extent of Rs.1,17,18