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

In the result, we do not find any

Bench: ANIS,SANJAY KUMAR

2(22)(e) are fully satisfied in the case of the assessee? 7 4. The factual background, in which the aforesaid questions of law arise for our consideration need mention, which are stated infra. The assessee is engaged in the manufacture and export of readymade garments and also engaged in doing job works. The assessee is a 100% export oriented

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

2(22)(e) are fully satisfied in the case of the assessee? 7 4. The factual background, in which the aforesaid questions of law arise for our consideration need mention, which are stated infra. The assessee is engaged in the manufacture and export of readymade garments and also engaged in doing job works. The assessee is a 100% export oriented

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

The appeals are hereby dismissed

Bench: RAMESH RANGANATHAN,KONGARA VIJAYA LAKSHMI

e) The Trust is to provide “Service Lane” 16 wide with parking and footpath”. The amount to be spent is Rs. One Crore Vide Resolution No. 48 dated 26.08.2008 (free of cost). (f) The Trust has given as “Charity” of 'town cleaning machine' (vaccum Machine) to the Municipal Corporation, Bathinda, for Rs. 64.86 Lakhs vide Resolution No.56

The Principal Commissioner of Income Tax-IV vs. M/s.Parexel International [India] Pvt Ltd

Appeal stands dismissed and the substantial questions of law are answered against the

Bench: : The Hon’Ble Justice T.S. Sivagnanam & The Hon’Ble Justice Hiranmay Bhattacharyya Date : 10Th May, 2022. Appearance:- Ms. Smita Das De, Adv.

Section 2(22)(e) was raised on the basis that the shareholding was more than 10%; whereas in the case before us, the shareholding is restricted to 5.27%. Therefore, there was no question of applicability of any deemed dividend. In so far as the second question is concerned, he pointed out that the payment of arrear provident fund

PROGREESIVE CONSTRUCTIONS LIMITED vs. JT. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX

Bench: C.V. BHASKAR REDDY,UJJAL BHUYAN

22. Thereafteq the Supreme Court held that in proceedings under Section 147 of the Act, the income tax officer may bring to charge items of income which had escaped assessnrcnt other than or in addition to those item or items which had led to issuance of notice under Section 148. It has been clarified that it is only the under

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

e) That, vide his letter dated 19-8-1999, the appellant herein had sub-let the works to Shri N.C. Kalita contractor and the same was a pleaded fact in the additional written statement filed by the respondent herein before the Arbitrator and from Page 19 of 60 there the learned District Judge had found the letter dated

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

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

Bench: RAMESH RANGANATHAN,M.SATYANARAYANA MURTHY

E N T Since common and akin issues are involved in these appeals, they are heard together and disposed of by this common judgment. 2. ITA No.548/2015 is filed by the revenue under Section 260A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (‘Act’ for short) challenging the order dated 31.03.2015 of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, “A” Bench, Bangalore (‘Tribunal

Principal Commissioner of Income Tax vs. M/s Nara Constructions,

Bench: CHALLA KODANDA RAM,C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY

disallowed while computing the total income is not deemed to be income in respect of which particulars have been concealed. 6. In the context of the present case, we would like to first reproduce clause (viii) of Section 36(1) of the Act as applicable in the Assessment Years 2003-2004 to 2009-2010, which reads:- “36. (1) The deductions

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

The appeal of the assessee is allowed

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

2. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the ld. CIT(A) has erred in deleting the addition of Rs.13,61,450/- made by the AO for not charging of interest on loans and advances given to Directors and Subsidiaries. 3. It is prayed that the order of the ld. CIT(A) be set aide and that

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

Bench: The Learned

2 of 10 Act. 3. The subject matter of controversy in the appeals before the learned ITAT centres around the Assessee’s claim for deduction under Section 54F of the Act. 4. The Assessee filed her return of income for AY 2011-12 on 31.12.2011, declaring an income of ₹70,87,301/-. The Assessee also claimed a deduction

NAVA BHARAT FERRO ALLOYS LTD. vs. THE DY.COMMI.OF INCOME TAX HYD.

22-12-2017 Between: The Commissioner of Income Tax Visakhapatnam … Applicant And M/s. V. Dhana Reddy & Co. Visakhapatnam … Respondent COUNSEL FOR THE APPLICANT: Mr. K. Raji Reddy, Senior Standing Counsel for Income Tax Department COUNSEL FOR THE RESPONDENT: Mr. A.V.A. Siva Kartikeya THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING: CVNR, J & CKR, J RC 18/2001 2 JUDGMENT

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

2(14) is not a word of art but a word of commercial implication. The bottom line is the availability of assets, activities carried out for exploiting the assets and that the assessee is not a mere onlooker in the activities of the company or a passive recipient of rent for utilization of facilities. 18. Applying the above ratio

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

2(14) is not a word of art but a word of commercial implication. The bottom line is the availability of assets, activities carried out for exploiting the assets and that the assessee is not a mere onlooker in the activities of the company or a passive recipient of rent for utilization of facilities. 18. Applying the above ratio

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

2(14) is not a word of art but a word of commercial implication. The bottom line is the availability of assets, activities carried out for exploiting the assets and that the assessee is not a mere onlooker in the activities of the company or a passive recipient of rent for utilization of facilities. 18. Applying the above ratio

The Commissioner of Income Tax- I vs. M/s. Avon Organics Limited

Bench: GODA RAGHURAM,M.S.RAMACHANDRA RAO

disallowed as revenue expenditure but capitalised, is as under:- “S.No. Expenses Head Amount 01. Salary & Wages 2283936 02 Employer Contribution to PF 46658 03 Employer Contribution to ESI 46919 04 Admin Charges PF/EDLI 4316 05 ESLI Charges 1943 06 Medical Expenses 151 07 Books & Periodicals 986 08 House Keeping Expenses 42493 09 Generator Running Maintt. 25121 ITA 257/2012 Page

THE PR COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (CENTRAL) vs. BHAVANASI ANJANEYULU

Appeals are allowed in part

Bench: RAMESH RANGANATHAN,KONGARA VIJAYA LAKSHMI

E N T Since the common and alike questions are involved in these appeals, the same are heard and disposed of by this common judgment. 2. ITA Nos.816/2017, 817/2017, 818/2017, 819/2017, 820/2017, 821/2017 are directed against the common order dated 02.05.2017 passed in ITA Nos.1358/Bang/2015, 1359/Bang/2015, 1360/Bang/ 2015, 1361/Bang/2015, 1362/Bang/2015, 1363/ Bang/2015 by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Bangalore [‘Tribunal

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

E R % 25.04.2012 Revenue in this appeal under Section 260A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (Act) impugns the order dated 17th June, 2011 passed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (tribunal) in the case of Imperial Fasteners Pvt. Ltd., the respondent-assessee. The appeal pertains to the assessment year 2006-07. 2. Having heard learned counsel for the parties