Commissioner of IncomeTax-2, vs. Mr. Mustafa Alam Khan,

Appeal is allowed

Bench: SANJAY KUMAR,GUDISEVA SHYAM PRASAD

Section 143(3) of the IT Act for the first two years after acquiring the said rights i.e., for AYs 2003-04 and 2004-05. However, for AY 2005-06 and 2006-07 the proportionate deduction of a sum of `25,23,333/- and `18,92,500/- was claimed, which was disallowed

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

disallowance of the interest incurred as expenditure, to the extent related to the tax free interest on bonds. Substantial Question of Law No.(2): 20 20. With regard to the substantial question of law no.(2), we find that a co-ordinate Bench of this Court in National Grindlays Bank (supra) and Kanoria Investment Pvt. Ltd. (supra) held that

The Commissioner of Income Tax I vs. M/s. Bhagiradha Chemicals AND Industries Ltd.,

The appeal is disposed of

25,142/-. 4. Commissioner of Income Tax issued a notice under Section 263 of the Act, dated 4th February, 2011, on two grounds. Firstly, commission of Rs.69,53,949/- had been paid to the two Managing Directors, but should have been disallowed

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

Bench: SUJOY PAUL,NAMAVARAPU RAJESHWAR RAO

Section 36(1)(iii) of the Act. In this context, our attention was drawn to the following parts of the order passed by the CIT(A): “5.4…The above facts show that appellant has made Long Term Investment of Rs.119,75,81,172/- by taking the loan of Rs.119,00,00,000/- on which it has paid interest of Rs.5

The Commissioner of Income Tax-IV, Hyderabad. vs. Prithvi Information Solutions P Ltd.,

disallowance of expenditure of Rs.1344,63,25,000/- under Section 40(a)(ia) of the Act. According to the CIT, the aforementioned

The Prl Commissioner of Income Tax (Exemptions) vs. Institute of Development and Research in Banking Technology

Bench: ABHINAND KUMAR SHAVILI,V RAMASUBRAMANIAN

Section 147 of the Act dated 19.12.2013 on the ground that deduction was allowed inadvertently is not sustainable. 12. In substance, Shri Suryanarayana's argument is, the AO had accepted the explanation and passed the assessment order. Therefore, the deductions allowed previously could not be disallowed subsequently on the ground that the same were inadvertently allowed. In support

The Commissioner of Income Tax(Central) vs. M/s.Madhu Enterprises

Bench: The Learned

disallowance under Section 54F of the Act in terms of the order dated 18.03.2019 passed under Section 250 of the Act. The Assessee being aggrieved by the learned CIT(A)’s order preferred an appeal before the learned ITAT [being ITA 3426/Del/2019], which was allowed by the learned ITAT by the impugned order. The present appeal by the Revenue

THE PRL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-II, VISAKHAPATNAM vs. L SURYAKANTHAM, VISAKHAPATNAM

In the result, the appeal fails and is hereby dismissed

Bench: RAMESH RANGANATHAN,KONGARA VIJAYA LAKSHMI

disallowance made by appellate authority under Section 80JJA of the Act by relying on its earlier order in case of assessee itself when said earlier order has not reached finality and even when the appellate authority rightly rejected said claim as deduction cannot be given in respect of additional wages paid on employment of new workmen during the previous year

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

25. Therefore, the expression "market value" in relation to any goods as defined by the explanation below the proviso to sub-section (8) of Section 8O IA would mean the price of such goods determined in an environment of free trade or competition. 'Market value' is al expression which denotes the price of a good arrived at between a buyer

The Commissioner of Income Tax - Central vs. M/s. Himagiri Biotech Pvt. Ltd.,

Section 36 (1) (iii) regarding advance of borrowed funds, to its sister concern?; (2) Did the ITAT fall into error in holding that the sum of `25,04,385/- brought to tax by the AO on the interest free deposit of ` 1,75,50,000/- was not sustainable?; (3) Is the ITAT’s order- that the assessee’s revised

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

Bench: P.SAM KOSHY,NARSING RAO NANDIKONDA

25. Therefore, the expression "market value" in relalion to any goods as dehned by the explanation below the proviso to sub-section (8) of Section 80 IA would mean t1.e price of such goods determined in an environment of free trade or competition. 'Murket value" is an expression which denotes the price of a good arrived at between a buyer

The Commissioner of Income Tax V vs. Smt. Ch. Uma

section 45A of the Kerala General Sales Tax Act, and paid under orders of the High Court, ought to be treated as an expenditure for the assessment year, even though the dispute had not attained finality? (iii) Whether the amount of Rs.1,25,12,348/- claimed as quality loss paid by the assessee to M/s. Apollo Tyres Limited is liable

Commissioner of Income Tax vs. M/s Ch.Veeraju AND co.

section 45A of the Kerala General Sales Tax Act, and paid under orders of the High Court, ought to be treated as an expenditure for the assessment year, even though the dispute had not attained finality? (iii) Whether the amount of Rs.1,25,12,348/- claimed as quality loss paid by the assessee to M/s. Apollo Tyres Limited is liable

Commissioner of Income Tax - VI vs. M/s. S.P. Steels

section 45A of the Kerala General Sales Tax Act, and paid under orders of the High Court, ought to be treated as an expenditure for the assessment year, even though the dispute had not attained finality? (iii) Whether the amount of Rs.1,25,12,348/- claimed as quality loss paid by the assessee to M/s. Apollo Tyres Limited is liable

Sri Rajesh Rawtani vs. The Income Tax Officer

The appeals are disposed off in the above

Bench: P.SAM KOSHY,SUDDALA CHALAPATHI RAO

25 lacs which was credited to its interest account. The facts are that the assessee had applied for and was allotted tax free bonds during the relevant period. The interest sought to be taxed was for the period between the date of submission of application along with the money to the issuing agency i.e. the Railways and actual allotment

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

AD-AGE OUTDOOR ADVERTISING P LTD., HYDERABAD. vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONEER OF INCOME TAX, HYDERABAD.

Bench: T.VINOD KUMAR,M.S.RAMACHANDRA RAO

disallowing the deduction of Rs. 45,00,000/-, the CIT(A)recorded the following reasons:- a) As; there was no specific provision under Section 36 of the Act relating to contribution to leave encashment fund, the amount of Rs. 45,00,000/- paid into the said fund by the assessee had no statutory recognition. b) There was no ascertained liability

The Commissioner of Incoe Tax III, vs. Raj Breeders and Hatcheries (PVT) Liited,

Bench: RAMESH RANGANATHAN,M.SATYANARAYANA MURTHY

disallowing the deduction of Rs. 45,00,000/-, the CIT(A)recorded the following reasons:- a) As; there was no specific provision under Section 36 of the Act relating to contribution to leave encashment fund, the amount of Rs. 45,00,000/- paid into the said fund by the assessee had no statutory recognition. b) There was no ascertained liability