The Prl. Commissioner of Income Tax-1 vs. M/s Andhra Pradesh Handicrafts Development Corporation Ltd.

The appeal is disposed of with liberty as prayed for by the learned

Bench: ANIS,SANJAY KUMAR

Section 260-A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (for short, ‘the Act’) questioning the correctness and legality of order dated 07.03.2016 passed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, ‘A’ Bench, Bengaluru (for short, ‘Appellate Authority’) in ITA.No.518/Bang/2015 for the assessment year 2010-11. 3. This Court, admitted the appeal on 31.10.2017 to consider the following substantial question

Commissioner of Income Tax vs. M/s.Kakinada Co-operative Town Bank Limited

Appeals stands disposed of in the

Bench: GODA RAGHURAM,M.S.RAMACHANDRA RAO

disallowing relied upon 4 judgments of Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of CIT Vs. N.C. Budhiraja & Company : (1993) 204 ITR 412 (SC); Cambay Electric Supply Industrial Company Limited Vs. CIT: (1978) 113 ITR 84 (SC), and CIT Vs. Sterling Foods : (1999) 237 ITR 579 (SC) and held that it is income earned on sale of import entitlements

The Commissioner of Incometax vs. M/s. Swarna Wines

Accordingly the appeals filed by the Revenue are allowed, and

Bench: Or After Obtaining The Licence.

237 of 2008; 290, 444, 482, 493 and 510 of 2010 COMMON ORDER: (per Hon’ble Sri Justice V.V.S.Rao) In all these cases the assesses 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 to carry on trade in retail liquor business

The Commissioner of Income Tax vs. M/s Durga Wines

Accordingly the appeals filed by the Revenue are allowed, and

Bench: Or After Obtaining The Licence.

237 of 2008; 290, 444, 482, 493 and 510 of 2010 COMMON ORDER: (per Hon’ble Sri Justice V.V.S.Rao) In all these cases the assesses 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 to carry on trade in retail liquor business

The Commissioner Of Income Tax, Vijayawada vs. M/s. Maruthi Wines

Accordingly the appeals filed by the Revenue are allowed, and

Bench: Or After Obtaining The Licence.

237 of 2008; 290, 444, 482, 493 and 510 of 2010 COMMON ORDER: (per Hon’ble Sri Justice V.V.S.Rao) In all these cases the assesses 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 to carry on trade in retail liquor business

COMMR OF INCOME TAX HYD vs. M/S.TAHER ENGG CORP. SECBAD

Bench: The Commissioner (Appeals). Through Order, Dated 04.12.1991, The Commissioner Allowed The Appeal & It Was Held That The Applicant Is Entitled To Treat The Unabsorbed Depreciation As Loss. Thereupon, The Department Carried The Matter In Appeal By Filing Ita.No.728/Hyd/1992 Before The Tribunal. The Tribunal Allowed The Appeal Through Its Order, Dated 28.08.1995 & Took The View That The Unabsorbed Depreciation Cannot Be Treated As Loss For The Purpose Of Section 115-J Of The Act.

disallowed the unabsorbed loss of the earlier Assessment Years. Aggrieved by that, the applicant filed an appeal before the Commissioner (Appeals). Through order, dated 04.12.1991, the Commissioner allowed the appeal and it was held that the applicant is entitled to treat the unabsorbed depreciation as loss. Thereupon, the department carried the matter in appeal by filing ITA.No.728/Hyd/1992 before

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

237 Hon‟ble Supreme Court has held as under:- ‚9. As per settled position of law laid down by this Court in a catena of decisions, an award can be set aside only if the award is against the public policy of India. The award can be set aside under Sections 34/37 of the Arbitration Act, if the award

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

Bench: C.V. BHASKAR REDDY,UJJAL BHUYAN

disallowed the deduction clairned by tJ:e assessee u/s. 80 IA of I.T. Act vide I.T.T.A. No.71 of 2O06 HC.T & ']''RRJ I.TTL No.7 I oJ 2406 2. When the law is settled by the Supreme Court in regard to claim for deduction u/s. 80 IA of the Act vide its judgment reported in 237 ITR page 134 which was pronounced