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

24 of 2011 COMMON JUDGMENT: (Per Hon’ble Sri Justice V.V.S.Rao) In this group of Income Tax Tribunal Appeals under Section 260A of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (hereafter, the Act) the common question of law raised by the Revenue is whether a cooperative society carrying on the business of banking is entitled to claim exemption under Section 80P(2

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

24 of 2011 COMMON JUDGMENT: (Per Hon’ble Sri Justice V.V.S.Rao) In this group of Income Tax Tribunal Appeals under Section 260A of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (hereafter, the Act) the common question of law raised by the Revenue is whether a cooperative society carrying on the business of banking is entitled to claim exemption under Section 80P(2

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

24 of 2011 COMMON JUDGMENT: (Per Hon’ble Sri Justice V.V.S.Rao) In this group of Income Tax Tribunal Appeals under Section 260A of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (hereafter, the Act) the common question of law raised by the Revenue is whether a cooperative society carrying on the business of banking is entitled to claim exemption under Section 80P(2

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

The appeals are hereby dismissed

Bench: RAMESH RANGANATHAN,KONGARA VIJAYA LAKSHMI

vi)Whether the Hon'ble ITAT is right in law while failed to consider the above judgments e.g. PUDA vs. CIT and Jalandhar Development Authority vs. CIT have been followed by Tribunal of Amritsar Bench in Jammu Development Authority vs. CIT reported as (2012) 52 SOT ASR 153 and upheld the order of CIT which cancelled the registration while passing

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

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

vi) The learned Court below acted contrary to the law by re- examining and reassessing the materials before the Arbitral Tribunal and in coming to its own conclusion as if it was hearing an appeal from the award. (vii) It is settled principle of law that even if the contract provides otherwise, the contractor is entitled to claim for delay

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

vi)Whether the Ld. Tribunal has not erred in law in refusing to appreciate the mistake which it committed in recalling the order in ITA No.345/ASR/2009 on the ground that “arguments of the assessee were not considered in their proper perspective” as the same amounted to perversity and did not fell within domain of the provisions of Section 254(2

Sri Rajesh Rawtani vs. The Income Tax Officer

The appeals are disposed off in the above

Bench: P.SAM KOSHY,SUDDALA CHALAPATHI RAO

2 to the said section also shows that the expression interest has been widened so that the benefit of exemption from withholding of tax is also extended to hedging transaction charges on account of currency fluctuation. This clearly shows that the interest on the bonds whether embedded in bonds subsequent to its purchase is also exempt. This being

Commissioner of Income Tax vs. M/s.Kakinada Co-operative Town Bank Limited

Appeals stands disposed of in the

Bench: GODA RAGHURAM,M.S.RAMACHANDRA RAO

2. The brief facts are being taken from DB Income Tax Appeal No.42/2008 (Commissioner of Income Tax Vs. M/s. Garment Crafts). This appeal was admitted on the following substantial questions of law:- “(i) Whether in the facts and circumstances of the case, the ITAT has not acted illegally and perversely in reversing the order passed

The Pr. Commissioner of Income-Tax-1 vs. M/s. New River Software System Pvt Ltd.,

The appeals are dismissed

Bench: RAMESH RANGANATHAN,M.SATYANARAYANA MURTHY

24,44,300/-. The additions received from RTCHL and Protex Trading Co. Ltd in AYs 2005-06 and 2007-08 amounted to `55,44,000/- and `1,17,72,500/- respectively. For the said receipts, the AO had sought details of the depositor’s bank accounts along with the cheque number and date; copy of the acknowledgment of return

The Commissioner of Income Tax-I vs. Adaptec [India] Ltd

The appeals are dismissed

24,44,300/-. The additions received from RTCHL and Protex Trading Co. Ltd in AYs 2005-06 and 2007-08 amounted to `55,44,000/- and `1,17,72,500/- respectively. For the said receipts, the AO had sought details of the depositor’s bank accounts along with the cheque number and date; copy of the acknowledgment of return

AD-AGE OUTDOOR ADVERTISING P LTD., HYDERABAD. vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONEER OF INCOME TAX, HYDERABAD.

Bench: T.VINOD KUMAR,M.S.RAMACHANDRA RAO

2. The relevant assessment years are 2002-03, 2003-04, 2004-05, 2005-06 and 2007-08. 3. For brevity the facts of the case involving assessment year 2002-03 are being considered herein. 4. By way of instant appeal under Section 260-A of Income Tax Act, 1961, (for short, ‘the Act’), the assessee has assailed order dated

The Commissioner of Incoe Tax III, vs. Raj Breeders and Hatcheries (PVT) Liited,

Bench: RAMESH RANGANATHAN,M.SATYANARAYANA MURTHY

2. The relevant assessment years are 2002-03, 2003-04, 2004-05, 2005-06 and 2007-08. 3. For brevity the facts of the case involving assessment year 2002-03 are being considered herein. 4. By way of instant appeal under Section 260-A of Income Tax Act, 1961, (for short, ‘the Act’), the assessee has assailed order dated

Commissioner of income tax, vs. M/s. R.K. Palace,

Bench: RAMESH RANGANATHAN,M.SATYANARAYANA MURTHY

2. The relevant assessment years are 2002-03, 2003-04, 2004-05, 2005-06 and 2007-08. 3. For brevity the facts of the case involving assessment year 2002-03 are being considered herein. 4. By way of instant appeal under Section 260-A of Income Tax Act, 1961, (for short, ‘the Act’), the assessee has assailed order dated

Commissioner of Income Tax-I vs. Agricultural Market Committee

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

2. The relevant assessment years are 2002-03, 2003-04, 2004-05, 2005-06 and 2007-08. 3. For brevity the facts of the case involving assessment year 2002-03 are being considered herein. 4. By way of instant appeal under Section 260-A of Income Tax Act, 1961, (for short, ‘the Act’), the assessee has assailed order dated

The Commisioner of Income TAx-1 vs. Divya Shakti Granites Ltd.,

Bench: RAMESH RANGANATHAN,M.SATYANARAYANA MURTHY

24 - RFA No.178 OF 2015 C/W RFA CROB NO.19 OF 2015 conversion of the subject land to non-agricultural user under section 95 of the Karnataka Land Revenue Act, 1964 inasmuch as the plaintiff could not acquire and hold the suit land because of bar enacted in section 79A of Karnataka Land Reforms Act, 1961, as the provision then existed

The Commissioner of Income Tax vs. M.Venkata Krishna Mohan

Bench: RAMESH RANGANATHAN,M.SATYANARAYANA MURTHY

24% respectively of the said joint venture. At the time when the joint venture was formed, the first license agreement dated 27th January 1993, was entered into, under which the appellant was granted by HRL license to use the Trade Mark HILTON in respect of Raw-Edge and Wrapped V-Belts. The relevant clauses of the said agreement