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

1), where the gross total income of a co- operative society includes any income referred to in Sub-section (2) then the sums specified in Sub-section (2) shall be deducted from the gross total income to arrive at the total income of the assessee-society. In order to earn exemption under Section 80P(2) a co-operative society must

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

1), where the gross total income of a co- operative society includes any income referred to in Sub-section (2) then the sums specified in Sub-section (2) shall be deducted from the gross total income to arrive at the total income of the assessee-society. In order to earn exemption under Section 80P(2) a co-operative society must

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

1), where the gross total income of a co- operative society includes any income referred to in Sub-section (2) then the sums specified in Sub-section (2) shall be deducted from the gross total income to arrive at the total income of the assessee-society. In order to earn exemption under Section 80P(2) a co-operative society must

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

Bench: P.SAM KOSHY,NARSING RAO NANDIKONDA

1 was disallowed as assessee under Section 80-IA of the Rs.37,34,55,899 l- in resPect of assessment Year. Further; the As the deduction claimed bY the ass the Act, 1961 from Rs.44,92'O4'8 invoking the Provisions of Secti IA(10) of the Act, 1961 and also o which were set uP are onlY

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 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

251 2014 claimed 1t)0('/o deduction under Section 80-lA of the Act, 1961, under which the parties can claim only for captive consurnption and not for sale of power to any outside partv. In the Assessmerrt C)rder for the Assessment Years 2004-2005 and 2005 06, thc claim of deduction under Section

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 vs. M/s.Kakinada Co-operative Town Bank Limited

Appeals stands disposed of in the

Bench: GODA RAGHURAM,M.S.RAMACHANDRA RAO

1. This batch of Income Tax Appeals is directed against order of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Jaipur (for short, 'Tribunal') and since the controversy raised and the substantial question of law admitted by this Court is same, for the sake of convenience and as agreed by counsel for the parties, the bunch of appeals are being decided by this