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

x) It is also well settled principle of law that an objection/plea not taken/raised before the arbitrator nor pleaded before the Arbitrator cannot be allowed to be raised for the first time before the Court and said objection being categorically put forward by the appellant in his objection filed by application preferred by the appellant to the respondent under Section

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.

24)(x) of the Act on account of Employees’ Contribution to Provident Fund due to non-deposit of contribution within the date to the appropriate authority. Mr. Khaitan, appearing for the assessee submitted that the first question is unmeritorious. In the case of Hooghly Mills Project Ltd. the point of applicability of Section 2(22)(e) was raised

Commissioner of Income Tax- IT and TP vs. M/s. Louis Berger International Inc

Bench: : The Hon’Ble Justice T.S. Sivagnanam & The Hon’Ble Justice Bivas Pattanayak Date : 21St July, 2022. Appearance :- Mr. Sumit Ghosh, Adv. ….For Appellant. Mr. Tilak Mitra, Adv. ….For Respondent

disallowed under Section 40A(3) of the Act. The next issue which was taken up by the assessing officer was with regard to the employees’ contribution to the Provident Fund and the assessing officer found that the amount was not deposited within the statutory due date and held it to be includible in the assessee’s income in terms

PROGREESIVE CONSTRUCTIONS LIMITED vs. JT. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX

Bench: C.V. BHASKAR REDDY,UJJAL BHUYAN

x Officer n ray bring to charge iterrs of income u,hich had escaped a isessmenr other-rhen or in addirion to that item or :: l6:: tems which have led to the issuance of notice under Section 148 and where re-assessment is made under Section 147 in respect of inconre which has escaped tax, the Income Tax Officer

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

Bench: : The Hon’Ble Justice Surya Prakash Kesarwani & The Hon’Ble Justice Rajarshi Bharadwaj Date : 28Th February 2024. Appearance: Mr. J. P. Khaitan, Senior Advocate Mr. Somak Basu, Advocate … For The Appellant. Mr. Vipul Kundalia, Advocate Mr. Anurag Roy, Advocate Ms. Oindrila Ghosal, Advocate … For The Respondent. 1. Heard Sri J. P. Khaitan, Learned Senior Advocate Assisted By Sri Somak Basu, Learned Counsel For The Appellant Assessee & Vipul Kundalia, Learned Senior Standing Counsel For The Respondent. 2. This Appeal Was Admitted By This Court By Order Dated 19.08.2011 On Four Substantial Questions Of Law. Learned Counsel For The Appellant Has Stated That The Appellant Does Not Want To Press The Substantial

X, Kolkata by order dated 14.11.2006. Aggrieved with the order of the CIT(A), the assessee filed an appeal being ITA No.555/Kol/2007 before the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Bench-“A”, Kolkata (ITAT) which was partly allowed by the ITAT. Aggrieved with the aforesaid order of the ITAT dated 25.03.2011, the assessee has filed the present appeal which has been admitted

Commissioner of Income Tax-II vs. Energy Solutions International India Pvt Ltd.,

Bench: J. UMA DEVI,V RAMASUBRAMANIAN

disallowance; the fact that for the Assessment Year 2008 – 09 some addition was made under the said head, cannot be the sole basis for making such an addition for the subsequent Assessment Year, each assessment being an independent compact. He also pleaded about CBI raid & seizure of all documents, not even a piece of paper being in his custody

The Commissioner of Income Tax (Central) vs. K. V. Srinivasa Rao

X? they may be ruled out as infringing Section 162 of the Code of Criminal Procedure because they do not set up a contradiction but attempt to get a fresh version from the witnesses with a view to contradicting him. How the cross-examination can be made must obviously vary from case to case, counsel to counsel and statement

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

2. Subject to the terms of this Agreement the Proprietor hereby grants to the User for the term of this agreement an exclusive right to use upon or in connection with Raw Edge, Wrapped V. Belts and other power transmission belts excluding that· transmission belts (hereinafter referred to as the Goods) the Trade Mark in India and in such other