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

Section 36 (1) (iii), there was no question of its being brought to tax for the three assessment years in question. Applying the ratio in CIT v. Sahara India Corporation Ltd, (2000) 296 ITR 295 (Del), it is held that the Revenue could not have taken a different view for these three years, particularly, when advances were not made

The Commissioner of Income Tax-III, vs. M/S Sarada Projects Pvt. Ltd,

Appeals stand dismissed accordingly

disallowance made by the AO under section 36(1)(iii) of the IT Act. “ 5.2 Similarly in the case of Raghuvir Synthetics Ltd (supra), this Court has held as under: “9. We may refer to the judgment of Apex Court at this stage given in case of S.A.Builders Ltd. v. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) reported in 288 ITR 1

The commissioner of Income Tax-I vs. M/s Bhagyanagar Studios

The appeals are disposed of in the manner indicated above

Bench: RAMESH RANGANATHAN,M.SATYANARAYANA MURTHY

disallowance of deduction of `24,59,300/- made by the AO u/s 10B of the Income Tax Act, 1961 ignoring the fact that the new unit has been formed by splitting up of the existing business of M/s Dynamech? (ii)Whether on the facts and circumstances of the case, Ld. ITAT is perverse in law and on the facts

Commissioner of Income Tax vs. Sri. B. Venkatesam,

The appeal stands disposed of with no order as to

254 (SC). Accordingly, the said question is answered in the negative and in favour of the assessee. Brief facts relevant to the disallowance of `1,64,87,375 - disputed additional customs duty claimed by the assessee as a part of the landed cost of goods. 8. The facts, relevant to the question of deduction on account of additional customs duty

COMMISSIONER OF INCOMETA VIZ vs. M/S RAJAM EXTRACTIONS PVT

The appeal is partly allowed

Bench: GODA RAGHURAM,M.S.RAMACHANDRA RAO

Section 43B of the Income Tax Act. This Court is governed by the said precedent and accordingly answers question Nos. 1 and 2 in the affirmative and against the assessee. 5. The third question i.e. disallowance in respect of sum of ₹ 1,19,07,989/- being a loss incurred on account of devaluation of Rupee is governed by the ruling

Commissioner of Income Tax vs. Sri B. Nagendar,

In the result, Tax Appeal is dismissed with a

Bench: CHALLA KODANDA RAM,G.CHANDRAIAH

section 80I, directing to adjust the same in interest  expenses?” 2. Briefly stated, the facts are that the assessee is a private Trust  Page 2 of 9 O/TAXAP/316/2001 JUDGMENT carrying   on   business   of   manufacturing   washing   powder   in   the  name of “K.K. Patel Industries”. The assessee filed the return of  income on 29.06.1988 declaring total income of Rs.1

THE PRL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX [CENTRAL] HYDERABAD vs. M/S SREE NAGENDRA CONSTRUCTIONS, KHAMMAM

In the result, appeal stands dismissed

Bench: This

1. Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal is right in setting aside the disallowance made under section 35-D of the Act by the assessing authority by following its earlier order which has been challenged before this - 3 - Hon’ble High Court in ITA No.684/2015 and even when the assessing authority has rightly

Commissioner of Income Tax [TDS] vs. The Executive Engineer

In the result, these appeals fail and are

Bench: RAMESH RANGANATHAN,M.SEETHARAMA MURTI

section 115 JB of Act? 8. Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal erred in allowing the relief with regard to losses which were due to operational mistakes, related mainly to ATM transactions of customer and that loss is essential capital loss incurred for operational purposes? 9. Whether on the facts