The Commissioner of Income Tax IV vs. M/s Matrix Power Pvt Ltd.,

disallowed, as the income of this unit was exempt from tax. In response, the Assessee furnished its detailed submissions, which, however, were rejected by the AO who was of the opinion that as Section 10B was in Chapter-III of the Act, under the heading ―incomes which do not form part of total income‖, legislative intent was clear that such

The Director of Income Tax, (Exemptions) vs. Royal Education Society

In the result, the appeal is disposed of

Bench: ANIS,SANJAY KUMAR

71,70,670/- and made following additions: (a) disallowance of contributions made to funds -Rs.10,86,43,782/-. (b) additional loss claimed on sale of securities - Rs.8,28,65,052/-. Being aggrieved, the assessee filed an appeal before the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) who by an order dated 31.07.2014 partly allowed the appeal. The assessee thereupon filed an appeal

Commissioner of Income Tax-III, vs. M/s Sree Rayalaseema Green Energy Limited,

Section 14A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 and the second issue relates to disallowance of provision for current liabilities of Rs.2,51,96,577/-. 2. At the outset, we notice the casual and insouciant approach adopted by the Assessing Officer, who had made additions of Rs.6,75,64,435/-, to the returned income of Rs.85,970/- in an order

M/s.Tata Teleservices Limited vs. Dy. Commissioner of Income Tax

Bench: SUJOY PAUL,NAMAVARAPU RAJESHWAR RAO

2% of above as per Rule 8D 1197581172 X 0.5% 5987905 5987905 Total disallowance [ Aggregate of (i), (ii) &(iii) ] 5,65,64,291 Therefore, an amount of Rs 5,65,64,291/- have to be disallowed u/s 14A read with Rule 8D of I.T.Rules, 1962 and added to the total income of the assessee. However, total expenses debited

THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX-IV, HYDERABAD vs. M/S NAVA BHARAT VENTURES LTD., HYD

The appeal is dismissed

Bench: P.SAM KOSHY,NARSING RAO NANDIKONDA

71,89,OOO/- and in the said returns, the assessee has claimed deduction of Rs.44,91,I7,391/- under Section 8O-IA of the Act, 1961 in respect of profits from power generation units of different Villages. In support of deduction, the assesse has filed Form No.lO CCB, dated 27.11.2006, for each unit. During the assessment proceedings by the Assessing

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

disallowed as business expenditure. 71. Further as rightly pointed out, AS 2 would apply in terms of which, with ITA 210/2003 & connected matters Page 31 of 36 the Assessee following the CCM, the expenditure incurred subsequent to the completion of the project cannot be attributed to work and had to be allowed only as revenue expenditure. Consequently, the question

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

Appeals of the Revenue are dismissed

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

disallowed as business expenditure. 71. Further as rightly pointed out, AS 2 would apply in terms of which, with ITA 210/2003 & connected matters Page 31 of 36 the Assessee following the CCM, the expenditure incurred subsequent to the completion of the project cannot be attributed to work and had to be allowed only as revenue expenditure. Consequently, the question

M/S. SREE TRADING CORPORATION vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD 4(1), HYDERABAD

Bench: N.TUKARAMJI,UJJAL BHUYAN

Section 143(3) of the Act. Amongst other disallowances, assessing officer disallowed an amount of Rs.11,71,893.00 shown by the appellant as receipts from trade creditors. Consequently taxable income of the appellant was assessed at Rs.15,86,408.00. 6. Appellant preferred appeal before the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-V, Hyderabad (briefly referred to hereinafter

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. Shri Byru Venkateswarlu

Appeal is dismissed

Bench: RAMESH RANGANATHAN,M.SATYANARAYANA MURTHY

71,917/- 2-9 Salarly to Babu Bhai Rs.10,800/- 14 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

Commissioner of Income Tax vs. Agricultural Market Committee

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

Section 142 (2) (A) of the Income Tax Act were also ordered. Though, this Court is not directly concern with details of those facts, yet to the extent it is relevant is worth noticing that the appellant did not cooperate with the Special Auditors who had to proceed with some difficulty and nevertheless filed the report within the time allocated

Commissioner of Income Tax vs. J Charan Kumar [HUF]

The appeals are dismissed

Bench: J. UMA DEVI,V RAMASUBRAMANIAN

disallowed in terms contemplated by Explanation 1 forming part of Section 37. 21. Appearing for the respondent assessee, Mr. Vohra, learned senior counsel submitted that it would be wholly incorrect to view the Bar Council of India Rules as amounting to a prohibition imposed by law and thus fall within the ken of Explanation 1. Mr. Vohra submitted that

Kuchipudi Krishna Kishore vs. The DCIT

Accordingly the appeals deserves to be allowed by setting aside the impugned

Bench: P.SAM KOSHY,N.TUKARAMJI

2 3 . ....t. L'l \i ' ,.,,,r . rncome. Further observed that, the deduction under Section 57(iii) of the Act under the head of income from ,other sources, does not make the capital expenditure exclusively spent for the purpose of earning income and the expenditure craimed must be of the nature relating to earning of income, with a reflection

THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX III, HYDERABAD vs. M/S. SRINIVASA HATCHERIES PVT. LTD

Bench: C.V. BHASKAR REDDY,UJJAL BHUYAN

71 OF 2006 lncome Tax Tribunal Appeal under Section 260-4 of the lncome Tax Act, 1961, against the order of the lncome Tax Appellate Tribunal, Hyderabad Bench 'B' Hyderabad in ITA No.489iHl2000, for assessment year 1998-99 daled 2111212004 preferred against the order of the Commissioner of lncome Tax (Appeals-ll), Hyderabad, Appeal No 13/JCSR4/ClT (A) ll/1999-2000 dated

Commissioner of Income Tax-1 vs. M/s. A.S. Raja Sons Enterprises (P) Ltd.,

Bench: 31.3.2000 I.E. The End Of The Relevant Accounting Year Even Though The Assessee Has Already Incurred Liability Of Excise Duty Of A Much Higher Value?

2 of 3 “i. Whether the ITAT erred in law in confirming the disallowance of the amount of Rs.2,93,59,644/- deposited by the Appellant in its Central Excise Personal Ledger Account (PLA) before 31.3.2000 i.e. the end of the relevant accounting year even though the assessee has already incurred liability of excise duty of a much higher value

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

disallowed. These were put during the cross-examination of Bankey, PW 30. They are: Q. Did you state to the investigating officer that the gang rolled the dead bodies of Nathi, Saktu and Bharat Singh and scrutinized them, and did you tell him that the face of Asa Ram resembled that of the deceased Bharat Singh? Q. Did you state

M/s. Sathavahana Ispat Limited vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax

Bench: P.SAM KOSHY,LAXMI NARAYANA ALISHETTY

Section 23 of the Income-Tax Act (hereinafter referred to as the ‗Act‘). The issue has arisen in the same factual backdrop casting its reflection on all these years. This would become amply clear when we take stock of the factual premise in which the issue has arisen. The assessee is the owner of 71-72, New Markers Chamber

The Pr. Commissioner of income Tax-4 vs. M/s. Pavani Structurals Pvt. Ltd.

Accordingly, the appeal fails and is dismissed

Bench: :

disallowance made by the Assessing Officer on account of Bogus Loss from share transaction amounting to Rs.71,38,200/- from the scrip of “First Financial Services Ltd.” was 2 justified in view of the fact that the said company was in the list of entities involved in doing suspicious transaction in penny stocks and that the assessee, who was specialized