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

Bench: SUJOY PAUL,NAMAVARAPU RAJESHWAR RAO

Section 36(1)(iii) of the Act. In this context, our attention was drawn to the following parts of the order passed by the CIT(A): “5.4…The above facts show that appellant has made Long Term Investment of Rs.119,75,81,172/- by taking the loan of Rs.119,00,00,000/- on which it has paid interest of Rs.5

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

19,881/- being disallowance under Rule 6D, it is argued that each and every addition does not automatically result in levy of penalty and hence this imposition also deserves to be annulled. 20. I am inclined to accept the plea of the appellant that at the time of assessment the AO did not initiate penalty on claim of depreciation

Sri Rajesh Rawtani vs. The Income Tax Officer

The appeals are disposed off in the above

Bench: P.SAM KOSHY,SUDDALA CHALAPATHI RAO

disallowed the claim originally made under section 80G. The reasoning of these two lower authorities was that the claim was unsupported by any documentary proof with regard to the permissibility of the deduction and such being the case, relief of larger deduction as business expenditure could not be granted. 15. The Tribunal accepted the assessee’s argument and held that

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

The appeal of the assessee is allowed

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

19,82,821/- was given as unsecured loan to Punjab Biotechnology Plant Ltd., a sister concern of the assessee-company. The Tribunal further observed that Shri A.S.Bhatia, was the maternal uncle and the assessee-company itself treated the amount standing in his name as loan given by the assessee to him. The auditors of the assessee-company had treated this

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

COMMR.OF I.T. A.P.I HYD vs. DIAMOND HATCHERIES (P) LTD

Appeal is allowed

disallowed the deduction of Rs.10,19,200/- under Section 80M of the Act claimed by the assessee and also estimated

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.,

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

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

disallowed. The tribunal further held that the issue pertaining to Section 115JAA of the Act was not argued and the assessee cannot go back to the computation on the issue pertaining to Section 14A of the Act. In the result, the appeal was dismissed. In the aforesaid factual background, the assessee has filed this appeal. 6 4. Learned counsel

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

disallowance of I.T.A. No.193/12 & Conn. Cases -:19:- Rs.52 lakhs claimed under the head “sales tax written off”. A penalty of Rs.75,80,772/- for the years 1987-88 to 1993-94 was imposed in the year 1996-97 section

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

disallowance of I.T.A. No.193/12 & Conn. Cases -:19:- Rs.52 lakhs claimed under the head “sales tax written off”. A penalty of Rs.75,80,772/- for the years 1987-88 to 1993-94 was imposed in the year 1996-97 section

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

disallowance of I.T.A. No.193/12 & Conn. Cases -:19:- Rs.52 lakhs claimed under the head “sales tax written off”. A penalty of Rs.75,80,772/- for the years 1987-88 to 1993-94 was imposed in the year 1996-97 section

PROGREESIVE CONSTRUCTIONS LIMITED vs. JT. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX

Bench: C.V. BHASKAR REDDY,UJJAL BHUYAN

19. However, the moot question as advened to above was examined by the Supreme C-ourt in VJagan Mohan Rao v. CIT (7 supra) which deak urith reassessment under Section 14 of the Indian Income Tax Act, 1922. In that case, it was held that once an assessment is reopened, the previous under-assessment is set aside and the whole

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

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

COMMISSIONER OF INCOMETA VIZ vs. M/S RAJAM EXTRACTIONS PVT

The appeal is partly allowed

Bench: GODA RAGHURAM,M.S.RAMACHANDRA RAO

Section 43B of the I.T.Act. (iii) Whether the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal is correct in law and on facts in upholding the disallowance of a sum of ₹1,19

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

disallowance of expenditure. The tax, if is deducted at any time during the financial year and paid before the date of filing of the return, the Legislature intended to allow deduction on such expenditure with an intention to permit additional time for most deductors upto September of the next financial year. 17.1: We draw further support from the fact that