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

Appeal is disposed of

Bench: N.TUKARAMJI,UJJAL BHUYAN

disallowance made by the assessing oflicer under Section 43B of the Act for al amount of Rs'2,74,O27 OO on account of late payment of Provrdent Fund (PF) and Employees State Insurance (ESI)? iii) Whether on the facts and in the circumstalces of the case Tribunal uras justilied in confrrming the order of the first appellate authority

Commissioner of Income tax-V, vs. M/s. INTRACK INC,

3. The substantial questions of law that arise for consideration in all these appeals is whether, the amendment to Section 40(a)(ia) by the Finance Act, 2010, which is given effect from 01.04.2010 is retrospective in nature. 4. Prior to the amendment, the said provision read as under:- Section 40(a)(ia) : any interest, commission or brokerage, rent, royalty

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

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 III, vs. M/S. SAVIJANA SEA FOODS PVT. LTD.,

Appeals of the Revenue are dismissed

Bench: J SREENIVAS RAO,ALOK ARADHE

3. The Assessee states that the Gopal Das Bhawan Project was completed in the Financial Year („FY‟) 1994-95 relevant to Assessment Year („AY‟) 1995-96. Some of the allottees of the flats refused to take them for completion since the New Delhi Municipal Council („NDMC‟) changed the ITA 210/2003 & connected matters Page 6 of 36 usage of the Lower

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

Appeals of the Revenue are dismissed

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

3. The Assessee states that the Gopal Das Bhawan Project was completed in the Financial Year („FY‟) 1994-95 relevant to Assessment Year („AY‟) 1995-96. Some of the allottees of the flats refused to take them for completion since the New Delhi Municipal Council („NDMC‟) changed the ITA 210/2003 & connected matters Page 6 of 36 usage of the Lower

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

Bench: A RAMALINGESWARA RAO,DILIP B. BHOSALE

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 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (for short, the Act), against

Commissioner of Income Tax vs. Agricultural Market Committee

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

3) of the Act on 30.11.2009 and the assessee claimed the repayment of liabilities of Rs.2,81,33,700/- as application of income which was construed as repayment of loan taken from the Marketing Board for construction of rural roads and development of Mandis. The Assessing Officer came to the conclusion that the assessee had not shown increase

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

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

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

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

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

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 of the assessee in view of the judgment in Assam Co-operative Apex Marketing Society Ltd. Vs. Additional CIT: (1993) 113 CTR (SC) 58, which came