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 (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

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

Appeal is disposed of

Bench: J SREENIVAS RAO,ALOK ARADHE

v. PCIT. The said appeal was filed by the respondent (hereafter CFIPL) assailing the order dated 29.03.2019 passed by the Principal Commissioner of Income Tax-2 (hereafter PCIT) under Section 263 of the Act in respect of the assessment year (AY) 2014-15. Digitally Signed By:RAM KUMAR Signing Date:10.02.2025 14:40:57 Signature Not Verified ITA No.113/2024 Page

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

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

In the result, appeal stands dismissed

Bench: This

V. HOSMANI I.T.A.No.490/2016 BETWEEN : 1. PR. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-VI, CENTRAL REVENUE BUILDINGS, QUEENS ROAD, BANGALORE-560 001. 2. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE 6(1)(2) BENGALURU. ...APPELLANTS (BY SRI JEEVAN J. NEERALGI, ADV. A/W SRI T.N.C.SRIDHAR, ADV.) AND : M/s SUBEX LTD., RMZ ECOWORLD, DEVARABISANAHALLI, OUTER RING ROAD, BANGALORE-560 037. PAN: AABCS 9255R. …RESPONDENT

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

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

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 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 Pr.Commissioner of Income Tax (Central) vs. M/s Vaishnavi Educational Society

In the result, this Cross Objection is allowed and the suit is

Bench: RAMESH RANGANATHAN,M.SATYANARAYANA MURTHY

47 57. The afore suspicion and impression of mine become fortified by the testimony of Sri.Rafi, as DW2, when he first stated, in page 20 thereof, that he had paid Rs.5 lakhs as advance sale consideration; but later resiled from this and said, in page 23, that he had withdrawn Rs.2 lakhs from his bank account on 23.05.2008, being

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

Commissioner of Income Tax -II vs. M/S Sri Ramanjaneya Poultry Farm Pvt., Ltd.,

Bench: CHALLA KODANDA RAM,G.CHANDRAIAH

v. State of M.P.: (1968) 3 SCR 662, this Court laid 7 principles for the courts to see if the suit was barred under Section 9 of the Code or not. It is not necessary to set out all the 7 principles as we find that the present suit would be barred under the second principle laid by this Court