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

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

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

Bench: P.SAM KOSHY,NARSING RAO NANDIKONDA

2 claimed 100% deduction under Se under which the Parties can claim and not for sale of Power to Assessment Order for the Assess 2005-06, the claim of deduction 196 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

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

2 251 ITR 84 - 10 - ITA No. 383 of 2016 (iii) It is profitable to see what Kanga & Palkhivala’s ‘Law and Practice of Income Tax’, Vol. II, Eleventh Edn., Lexis Nexus at pages 3316 – 17 states: “…A question is a substantial question of law if: (i) it directly or indirectly affects substantial rights of the parties

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

2 supra), the Supreme Court held that while exercising jurisdiction suo motu under Section 263 of the Act, the Commissioner has to be satisfied with two conditions, namely, (i) that the Order of the AO sought to be revised is erroneous; and (ii) it is prejudicial to the interests of the revenue. That if either of the two conditions

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

2. The brief facts are being taken from DB Income Tax Appeal No.42/2008 (Commissioner of Income Tax Vs. M/s. Garment Crafts). This appeal was admitted on the following substantial questions of law:- “(i) Whether in the facts and circumstances of the case, the ITAT has not acted illegally and perversely in reversing the order passed