PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-I vs. A.V. V. VARAPRASAD

Bench: C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY,T.AMARNATH GOUD

disallow the claim of exemption under Sections 54EC and 54F, after giving opportunity of being heard to the assessee. This order was appealed by the assessee by filing I.T.A.No.178/Vizag/2015. On similar facts, another assessee by name Y.V.Ramana, also filed an appeal in I.T.A.No.177/Vizag/2015. Both were heard together and disposed of by a common order, which is assailed

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

Section 34(2) of the Act, the learned District Judge has the power to set aside the award on the said ground, and exercise of such power cannot be said to be beyond jurisdiction. The Issue of Escalation of Price of Materials:- 24. The appellant, before the Arbitrator had made a claim of Rs. 28,92,193/- on account

The Commissioner of Income Tax IV vs. Margadarshi Chit Fund Pvt. Ltd.,

The appeal is dismissed

2 were completed and addition of Rs.1,01,016/- was made and keeping in view the provisions of Section 40 (a) (ia) of the Act 1961 payment of Rs.1,01,016/- made to Satake India Engg (P) Ltd on account of AMC was disallowed. Further Rs.56,650/- incurred on purchase of UPS held to be capitalized and depreciation was ordered

The Pr. Commissioner of Income vs. Shri. Vishnu Mohan Reddy Chintapally

Appeal is disposed of

Bench: J SREENIVAS RAO,ALOK ARADHE

2) and 142(1) of the Act, along with a questionnaire, were issued on 05.07.2016 and duly served on 08.07.2016. Digitally Signed By:RAM KUMAR Signing Date:10.02.2025 14:40:57 Signature Not Verified ITA No.113/2024 Page 4 of 8 10. The assessment order dated 20.12.2016 passed in the name of the Firm records that in response to the aforesaid

The Commissioner of Income Tax, vs. M/s. K.C.P.Limited

In the result, the appeal fails and is hereby dismissed

47,870/- The return was processed under Section 143(1) of the Act on 31.10.2006 and a refund of Rs.27,06,17,046/- was issued. Subsequently, the return filed by the assessee was selected for scrutiny and a notice under Section 143(2) of the Act was issued on 25.09.2006. The Assessing Officer scrutinized the details furnished and completed

Commissioner of Income Tax-III vs. Sri N.Sai Baba Naidu

Bench: J SREENIVAS RAO,ALOK ARADHE

2)(iii) were applicable and that the letting out of the machinery, ITA 319/2012 Page 3 of 9 plant and furniture and the letting out of buildings were inseparable and therefore the rental income was chargeable to tax under the residual head. According to him, it was the intention of the parties that the letting should be a composite letting

THE PRL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX [CENTRAL] HYDERABAD vs. M/S SREE NAGENDRA CONSTRUCTIONS, KHAMMAM

In the result, appeal stands dismissed

Bench: This

Section 35-D were not satisfied? 2. Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal is right in setting aside the disallowance of exchange fluctuation loss of Rs.3,63,47

THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, GUNTUR vs. M/s. Bommidala Brothers Limited

Bench: RAMESH RANGANATHAN,M.SATYANARAYANA MURTHY

disallowed under Section 80HHC of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as „the Act of 1961‟). 2. Retrospectivity given to Section 80HHC of the Act of 1961 has been held to be ultra vires by the Gujarat High Court and affirmed by Hon’ble the Supreme Court in the case of Commissioner of Income Tax v. Avani Exports

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

disallowance of interest of `75,47,897/- on unsecured loans was added under Section 68 of the Act and an amount of `1,51,200/- which was expended on the foreign guests was added. 3. Apropos the appeals filed in 2015, a similar reassessment order was passed pursuant to the search proceedings under Section 132, whereby inter alia additions

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

The appeals are dismissed

disallowance of interest of `75,47,897/- on unsecured loans was added under Section 68 of the Act and an amount of `1,51,200/- which was expended on the foreign guests was added. 3. Apropos the appeals filed in 2015, a similar reassessment order was passed pursuant to the search proceedings under Section 132, whereby inter alia additions

THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX III, vs. M/S. SAVIJANA SEA FOODS PVT. LTD.,

Appeals of the Revenue are dismissed

Bench: J SREENIVAS RAO,ALOK ARADHE

2)(xv) of the Indian Income Tax Act, 1922? It was acknowledged that “In choosing to compensate its constituents for the loss of their jewellery and maintain its business connections and goodwill, the bank laid out expenditure for the purpose of its business.” 32. It was further explained that “The sole question is whether the bank in incurring the expenditure

Commissioner of Income Tax, vs. M/s. Kokivenkateswara Reddy AND others,

Appeals of the Revenue are dismissed

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

2)(xv) of the Indian Income Tax Act, 1922? It was acknowledged that “In choosing to compensate its constituents for the loss of their jewellery and maintain its business connections and goodwill, the bank laid out expenditure for the purpose of its business.” 32. It was further explained that “The sole question is whether the bank in incurring the expenditure

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

2. “Did you state to the investigating officer about the presence of the gas lantern?” 44. Learned Sessions Judge disallowed the questions holding that omission does not amount to contradiction and cannot be put under section 161 of Cr.P.C. He held: “Therefore, if there is no contradiction between his evidence in court and his recorded statement in the diary

M/S.MALLIKARJUNA RICE INDUSTRIES vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER

Bench: N.TUKARAMJI,UJJAL BHUYAN

disallowed d b;rck to the t()r-'il itrcotlre oi tl-ie rs scs';ee u4rile rq the assessmctrt tttrtle r Scctior i4ll'' t o1 the Act' v.Snotdorrc'lsscsstlrgo[licerrsstre.lri<.ticetlnder 1li4 oi the Act on l6'01'lCCl ro ihe;rppe[ant Lg to adcl the otrt st 'rritlir lg :llrlottrlt

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

2,09,72,07/-. In view of above, the revised total depreciation claim of Rs. 3,16,84,86,154/- was intimated to the AO with a request that the same be accepted at the time of finalization of the assessment. In the reply dated 17.10.1997 the appellant company took care to enclose revised chart of depreciation as a separate

The Commissioner of Income Tax vs. Shri Byru Venkateswarlu

Appeal is dismissed

Bench: RAMESH RANGANATHAN,M.SATYANARAYANA MURTHY

Disallowance of Dalali Rs.2,136/- 15” 6. Counsel for the appellant has further contended that the Gujarat High Court in the case of National Textiles vs. Commissioner of Income Tax reported in 249 ITR 0125 in para 21-24 has observed as under: “21. The provisions of section 68 permitting the assessing officer to treat unexplained cash credit as income

Mr. K.S.N.Raju vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax,

Bench: ANIS,SANJAY KUMAR

Sections 302, 201 r/w 34 of the Indian Penal Code and acquitting co-accused Nandkishor Balreddy Kolyame (Koltame) and Subhash Virbhadrappa Kumbhar. 2. Appellant Subhash Ganesh Gir has filed Criminal Appeal No. 418 of 2016 taking exception to the impugned Judgment and Order referred to above, whereas; State has filed two appeals viz. Criminal Appeal

COMM.OF INCOME TAX VISAKHAPATNAM vs. BHANU ENTERPRISES KAKINADA

2. Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was correct in Law in holding that the debate did not exist before the Assessing Officer but only surfaced before the CIT(A), and that therefore the invocation of the summary power to correct errors apparent on the face of the record were available