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

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

The Commissioner of Income Tax-II vs. M/s.Pact Securities AND Financial Services Ltd

Bench: The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals), The Assessees Had Called In Question The Orders Of Assessing Officer (For Short ‘The A.O.’), Who, While Completing The Assessment For The Relevant Assessment Years Disallowed The Deduction Of The “Lease Equalization” Charges From The Lease Rental Income. The Disallowed Amounts By The Cit (Appeals) In These Appeals Are Of Rs.48,56,224/-, Rs,44,18,245/- & Rs.13,16,123/-.

disallowance made by the lower authorities on the claim of the appellant with regard to the lease equalization account to the extent of Rs.4,35,89,466/-? 2. Whether in law the Tribunal is justified in not appreciating that the appellant being a NBFC had followed the norms required by its regulatory authority namely RBI and hence the claim made

PRL COMMR OF INCOME TAX, TIRUPATI, CHITTOOR DIST vs. V DWARAKANATH REDDY, CHITTOOR

The appeals are hereby dismissed

Bench: RAMESH RANGANATHAN,KONGARA VIJAYA LAKSHMI

Section 2(15). The Tribunal, therefore, rightly directed the Assessing Officer to delete disallowance of exemption. 74. It cannot possibly be suggested that the Government of Punjab formed the trusts under the Punjab Town Improvement Act, 1922 because it wanted to carry on the business as colonizers or developers under the mask of the category “objects of general public utility

The Commissioner of Income Tax (Exemptions0 vs. Kalinga Cultural Trust

In the result, we do not find any

Bench: ANIS,SANJAY KUMAR

disallowed the assessee's claim for deduction under Section 10B of the Act. 5. The Assessing Officer inter alia held that assessee is entitled to deduction under Section 10B of the Act only after verification and the contention of the assessee that old machinery from FFIPL was transferred to it only in April 2007 does not deserve acceptance

Principal Commissioner of Income Tax-5 vs. M/s. VBC Industries Limited

In the result, we do not find any

Bench: RAMESH RANGANATHAN,M.SATYANARAYANA MURTHY

disallowed the assessee's claim for deduction under Section 10B of the Act. 5. The Assessing Officer inter alia held that assessee is entitled to deduction under Section 10B of the Act only after verification and the contention of the assessee that old machinery from FFIPL was transferred to it only in April 2007 does not deserve acceptance

The Commissioner of Income Tax [Central] vs. Akula Nageswara Rao

The appeals stand dismissed

Bench: SANJAY KUMAR,GUDISEVA SHYAM PRASAD

disallowed in respect of Barotiwala Unit during the assessment year 2012-13. Accordingly, show cause notice under Section 263 of the Act was issued on 28.02.2016 by the CIT. After considering the reply filed by the assessee, order under Section 263 of the Act was passed by the CIT on 16.03.2016. Aggrieved by the order, the assessee filed an appeal

Commissioner of Income Tax-II vs. M/s.Kalyani Wines

In the result, I find this appeal bereft of merit and accordingly,

Bench: Hon’Ble Mr. Justice Robin Phukan

19-8-1999, before the learned Court below, and the same was not given effect to and that as per Clause 4.7.1.0 of G.C.C and Article 8 of the Contract dated 5-3-1999, approves contract, sub-contracting, sub-letting of the work was impermissible unless approved by the respondent, yet the same appears to be incorrect in as much

Commissioner of Income Tax-1 vs. The Associated Taners

The appeal is dismissed

Bench: RAMESH RANGANATHAN,M.SATYANARAYANA MURTHY

disallowance of Rs.74,01,771/- on the ground that it was a revenue expenditure?" ITA 271/2005 Page 2 of 8 Question No.1 2. The facts here are that the Assessing Officer (hereafter „AO‟) brought to tax a total amount of `1.2 crores for the relevant Assessment Year (A.Y.) 2000-01 holding that these denoted amounts as deemed dividend under Section

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

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, 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 :-

2). The words "such income" in Section 147 clearly referred to the income which is chargeable to tax but has "escaped assessment" and the Income Tax Officers' jurisdiction under the Section is confined only to such income which has escaped assessment. It does not extend to reconsidering generally the concluded earlier assessment. Claims which have been disallowed in the original

Commissioner of Income Tax-3, vs. M/s State Bank of Hyderabad

Bench: RAMESH RANGANATHAN,M.SATYANARAYANA MURTHY

2. Whether the Tribunal is justified in directing the assessing officer to recomputed the deduction under section 10A after reducing those expenses that were reduced only from export turnover, to reduce from the total turnover also, without appreciating that there is no provision in section 10A to the effect that such expenses should also be reduced from the total turnover

Commissioner of Income Tax vs. Agricultural Market Committee

In the result, both the substantial questions

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

2) of the Act. Undoubtedly, the judgment rendered by the Supreme Court and the Circular have been issued subsequent to the orders passed in the instant case. However, the fact remains that the Supreme Court has interpreted the provision of law, which was incorporated by the Legislature with effect from 01.04.1989, therefore, such an interpretation would 14 relate back

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

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

2 l- by invoking the provisions of Section 80-IA(8) ar.rd Section 8O- IA(10) of the Act, 1961 and also observed that tlre Porver Plants, which wer: set up are only for Captive Consurnption and that the APSEB has granted sanction only for the purpose of Captive Consumpt on. Since the main objective for setr

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