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

disallowed and could be subjected to tax as income in the hands of the assessee. iii) Section 80M read with Section 80AA of the Act, 1961 provides for deduction @ 60% on the income by way of dividend from a domestic company. Therefore, the entire amount received as dividend was the income from dividend and, as such, deduction under Section

M/S AVANTHI BUSINESS MACHINES LTD., HYDERABAD. vs. DCIT [ASSTS] CIRCLE -1 [1] HYDERABAD.

Appeal is disposed of

Bench: N.TUKARAMJI,UJJAL BHUYAN

1,36,482.O0 incurred for public issue of shares as revenue expenditure allowable under Section 37(I) of the Act? ii) Whether on the facts and in the cii'cumstalces of the case Tribunal was justified in conhrming the order of tlr" Iirst apPellate authority by sustaining the disallowance made by the assessing oflicer under Section

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

1 (SC) which has been followed in Hero Cycles v. CIT (2015) 379 ITR 347. The ratio of the decision of the Bombay High Court in CIT v. Lokhandwala Constructions Industries Ltd. (2003) 260 ITR 579 (Bom) was rightly relied upon by the ITAT to allow the plea of the Assessee and treat the said interest payments as revenue 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

1 (SC) which has been followed in Hero Cycles v. CIT (2015) 379 ITR 347. The ratio of the decision of the Bombay High Court in CIT v. Lokhandwala Constructions Industries Ltd. (2003) 260 ITR 579 (Bom) was rightly relied upon by the ITAT to allow the plea of the Assessee and treat the said interest payments as revenue expenditure

Samaj Seva Nidhi, vs. ACIT [Inv] circle-II

Bench: A RAMALINGESWARA RAO,DILIP B. BHOSALE

1. (1993) 199 ITR 819 (Cal) 2. (2001) 247 ITR 201 (SC) 3. (2003) 261 ITR 190 (Delhi) 4. (2008) 303 ITR 111 (Delhi) THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE DILIP B. BHOSALE AND THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE A.RAMALINGESWARA RAO I.T.T.A. No.67 of 2004 JUDGMENT: (Per Hon’ble Sri Justice A.Ramalingeswara Rao) This appeal was filed under Section 260A

Commissioner of Income Tax vs. Sri. B. Venkatesam,

The appeal stands disposed of with no order as to

disallowance of `1,64,87,375 - disputed additional customs duty claimed by the assessee as a part of the landed cost of goods. 8. The facts, relevant to the question of deduction on account of additional customs duty, briefly stated are as follows: The appellant is, interalia, engaged in manufacturing and trading of products like de-oiled meals, industrial hard

SIEMENS AG.,FEDERAL REPUBLIC OF GERMANY vs. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX

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

201 ITA-10-2005 (O&M) Date of Decision: 03.12.2025 INDUSTRIAL CABLES PVT. LTD. ...Appellant Vs. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX & ANR. …Respondents CORAM:- HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE JAGMOHAN BANSAL HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AMARINDER SINGH GREWAL Present:- Mr. Divya Suri, Advocate for the petitioner Mr. Saurabh Kapoor, Advocate for respondent-Income Tax Department *** JAGMOHAN BANSAL, J. (ORAL) 1. The appellant

Principal Commissioner of Income Tax-1 vs. M/s Sri Sri Gruha Nirman India Pvt. Ltd.

Appeals are dismissed

Bench: P.SAM KOSHY,NARSING RAO NANDIKONDA

disallowance under Section 40(a)(ia) of the Act could not be sustained. 6. We may note that this view has been accepted by the Supreme Court in Commissioner of Income-tax v. Ahmedabad Stamp Vendors Association, [2012] 25 taxmann.com 201(SC). 7. Therefore, insofar as proposed question no. (ii) is concerned, in our view, that question does not arise

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

Bench: ANIS,SANJAY KUMAR

1. These three Criminal Appeals arise out of a common Judgment and Order dated 08.03.2016 passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge-3, Latur in Sessions Case No. 15/2012 thereby convicting Subhash Ganesh Gir for offence punishable under Sections 302, 201 r/w 34 of the Indian Penal Code and acquitting co-accused Nandkishor Balreddy Kolyame (Koltame) and Subhash Virbhadrappa Kumbhar

The Commissioner of Income tax vs. M/s. Nirmala Constructions

The appeal stands dismissed

Bench: Cit(A) After The Amendment U/S. 80P(2)(A)(Iii) Of The Act? Iv) Whether, In The Facts & Circumstances Of The Case The

1) ... …. … (2) (a)... … … (iv) the purchase of agricultural implements, seeds, livestock or other articles intended for agricultural for the purpose of supplying them to its members, or” 3. It manifests from the material on record that the assessing officer while considering the law prevailing at the relevant point of time for the assessment years in question has rejected the claim

The Commissioner of Income Tax vs. Independent Assemblies of God

Bench: RAMESH RANGANATHAN,M.SATYANARAYANA MURTHY

201 ITA-290-2005 (O&M) Date of Decision: 05.12.2025 M/S MAJESTIC AUTO LTD. ...Appellant Vs. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX & ANR …Respondents CORAM:- HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE JAGMOHAN BANSAL HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AMARINDER SINGH GREWAL Present:- Mr. Viren Sharma, Advocate with Mr. Yash Srivastava, Advocate for the appellant Mr. Vaibhav Gupta, Advocate for respondent-Income Tax *** JAGMOHAN BANSAL

Commissioner of Income Tax vs. Agricultural Market Committee

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

Sections reads thus:- “26. Purpose for which the market development fund may be expended.The marketing development fund shall be utilised out of following purposes: (i) better marketing of agricultural produce ; (ii) marketing of agricultural produce on co-operative lines ; (iii) collection and dissemination of market rates and news ; (iv) grading and standardisation of agricultural produce; (v) general improvements

The Commissioner of Income Tax, vs. M/s. Coromandel Wines,

Accordingly the appeals filed by the Revenue are allowed, and the

Bench: Or After Obtaining The Licence.

201, 203, 226, 227, 229, 230, 288, 437, 454, 468, 474, 481, 483, 485, 492 and 504 of 2010 COMMON JUDGMENT: (per Hon’ble Sri Justice V.V.S.Rao) In all these cases the assessees were granted a licence under the Andhra Pradesh Indian Liquor and Foreign Liquor Rules, 1970 and the Andhra Pradesh Excise Act, 1968. The licence enabled the assessee

The Commissioner of Income Tax- I vs. M/s. Avon Organics Limited

Bench: GODA RAGHURAM,M.S.RAMACHANDRA RAO

disallowed as revenue expenditure but capitalised, is as under:- “S.No. Expenses Head Amount 01. Salary & Wages 2283936 02 Employer Contribution to PF 46658 03 Employer Contribution to ESI 46919 04 Admin Charges PF/EDLI 4316 05 ESLI Charges 1943 06 Medical Expenses 151 07 Books & Periodicals 986 08 House Keeping Expenses 42493 09 Generator Running Maintt. 25121 ITA 257/2012 Page