CHENNAKESAVA PHARMACEUTICALS VIJAYAWADA vs. THE COMI.OF INCOMETAX VIJ.

In the result, all the appeals are allowed setting aside the common

Bench: GODA RAGHURAM,M.S.RAMACHANDRA RAO

251 ITR 009 (SC) 13(2010)291ITR 519 (SC) 14AIR 1973 S.C. 22 15(2008)306 ITR 277 (SC) HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE GODA RAGHURAM AND HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE M.S.RAMACHANDRA RAO I.T.T.A.Nos.29, 31 & 33 of 2000 COMMON JUDGMENT (per Hon’ble Sri Justice M.S.Ramachandra Rao): I.T.T.A.Nos.29, 33 and 31 of 2000 are filed under section

Commissioner of Income Tax-II vs. Energy Solutions International India Pvt Ltd.,

Bench: J. UMA DEVI,V RAMASUBRAMANIAN

disallowance; the fact that for the Assessment Year 2008 – 09 some addition was made under the said head, cannot be the sole basis for making such an addition for the subsequent Assessment Year, each assessment being an independent compact. He also pleaded about CBI raid & seizure of all documents, not even a piece of paper being in his custody

THE ASST COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX vs. SRI K.C.K.A.GUPTA

The Appeal is dismissed

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

251 of 2005 Dt: 03-01-2018 11 Court in C.I.T. v. Arvind Jewellers8, reiterating the principle that Section 263 of the Act cannot be invoked to correct each and every type of mistake or error committed by the AO, further held that the order of the AO cannot be termed as prejudicial, simply because he has adopted

Commissioner of Income Tax -II vs. The Agrasen Coop. Urban Bank Ltd.,

In the result, for the above reasons, these appeals fail and

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

disallowed the claim taking a view that the income from the Bonds could not be treated to be income attributable to the banking business within the meaning of Section 80P(2)(a)(i) of the IT Act. The assessee’s appeal failed but the appellate Tribunal allowed the claim. Before the Punjab and Haryana High Court the question was whether

COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-II, HYDERABAD vs. M/s. The A.P.Vardhaman(Mahila)Cooperative Urban

In the result, for the above reasons, these appeals fail and

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

disallowed the claim taking a view that the income from the Bonds could not be treated to be income attributable to the banking business within the meaning of Section 80P(2)(a)(i) of the IT Act. The assessee’s appeal failed but the appellate Tribunal allowed the claim. Before the Punjab and Haryana High Court the question was whether

Commissioner of Income Tax-II, vs. M/S The A.P.Mahesh Coop. Urban Bank Ltd,

In the result, for the above reasons, these appeals fail and

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

disallowed the claim taking a view that the income from the Bonds could not be treated to be income attributable to the banking business within the meaning of Section 80P(2)(a)(i) of the IT Act. The assessee’s appeal failed but the appellate Tribunal allowed the claim. Before the Punjab and Haryana High Court the question was whether

The Commissioner of Income Tax-II vs. The Andhra Bank Employees Co.Operative Bank Limited

In the result, for the above reasons, these appeals fail and

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

disallowed the claim taking a view that the income from the Bonds could not be treated to be income attributable to the banking business within the meaning of Section 80P(2)(a)(i) of the IT Act. The assessee’s appeal failed but the appellate Tribunal allowed the claim. Before the Punjab and Haryana High Court the question was whether

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