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 by the assessing officer on the ground that the assessee did not obtain prior approval in respect of investments against statutory reserves as required under Section 46 of the Andhra Pradesh Cooperative Societies Act, 1964 (the Societies Act) and Rule 37(2) of the Andhra Pradesh Cooperative Societies Rules, 1964 (the Societies Rules). The assessing officer came

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 by the assessing officer on the ground that the assessee did not obtain prior approval in respect of investments against statutory reserves as required under Section 46 of the Andhra Pradesh Cooperative Societies Act, 1964 (the Societies Act) and Rule 37(2) of the Andhra Pradesh Cooperative Societies Rules, 1964 (the Societies Rules). The assessing officer came

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 of Rs.74,08,964/- under the provisions of Section 80JJAA of the Act were proposed. The 5 assessee thereupon filed objections before the Dispute Resolution Panel contesting all the additions. The Dispute Resolution Panel, however rejected the objections preferred by the assessee. The assessee thereupon filed an appeal before the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (hereinafter referred

M/s Kausalya Agro Farms and Developers pvt. ltd vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax

The appeals are allowed

Bench: N.TUKARAMJI,UJJAL BHUYAN

256, 257, 259, 261, 262, 263, 264, 265, 266, 268, 269, 270, 271, 272, 273, 274, 275, 279, 281, 283, 284 and 294 of 2022 COMMON JUDGMENT: (Per the Hon’ble the Chief Justice Ujjal Bhuyan) This order will dispose of the above batch of income tax appeals. 2. Heard Mr. Dwarakanath, learned Senior Counsel representing Mr. Karthik Ramana Puttam

M/s. Dakshin Infrastructures Private Limited vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax

The appeals are allowed

Bench: N.TUKARAMJI,UJJAL BHUYAN

256, 257, 259, 261, 262, 263, 264, 265, 266, 268, 269, 270, 271, 272, 273, 274, 275, 279, 281, 283, 284 and 294 of 2022 COMMON JUDGMENT: (Per the Hon’ble the Chief Justice Ujjal Bhuyan) This order will dispose of the above batch of income tax appeals. 2. Heard Mr. Dwarakanath, learned Senior Counsel representing Mr. Karthik Ramana Puttam

Samaj Seva Nidhi, vs. ACIT [Inv] circle-II

Bench: A RAMALINGESWARA RAO,DILIP B. BHOSALE

disallowing the benefit of accumulation under Section 11(2) of the Act for the amount of Rs.3,00,000/- and demanded the tax at Rs.1,27,676/-. Against the said order, the assessee preferred an appeal before the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), Vijayawada, who, by his order dated 29.08.1997, allowed the appeal by placing reliance on Director of Income

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

disallowed and that itself cannot be a ground for levying a penalty. He relied on Commissioner of Income Tax Vs. Reliance Petroproducts Pvt. Ltd.[1] a n d Commissioner of Income Tax Vs. SAS Pharmaceuticals[2]. 2. For the levy of penalty under Section 271 (1) (c) of the Act, the assessing officer has to form his own opinion

The Commissoner of Income Tax I , vs. M/s. Alpha Thought Technologies P Ltd.,

In the result, the orders passed by the

Bench: RAMESH RANGANATHAN,M.SATYANARAYANA MURTHY

256/- is not an allowable expenditure on the facts and circumstances of the case? 4. Facts leading to filing of these appeals briefly stated are that the assessee is a company and was utilized as a special purpose vehicle for restructuring of Kirloskar Electric Company Ltd. Under an arrangement, approved by this court, the surplus on non 6 manufacturing

COMMR OF INCOME TAX HYD vs. M/S.TAHER ENGG CORP. SECBAD

Bench: The Commissioner (Appeals). Through Order, Dated 04.12.1991, The Commissioner Allowed The Appeal & It Was Held That The Applicant Is Entitled To Treat The Unabsorbed Depreciation As Loss. Thereupon, The Department Carried The Matter In Appeal By Filing Ita.No.728/Hyd/1992 Before The Tribunal. The Tribunal Allowed The Appeal Through Its Order, Dated 28.08.1995 & Took The View That The Unabsorbed Depreciation Cannot Be Treated As Loss For The Purpose Of Section 115-J Of The Act.

256(1) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (for short ‘the Act’), at the instance of the assessee, is made by the Hyderabad Bench ‘A’ of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (for short ‘the Tribunal’). The applicant is an assessee under the Act. In the returns filed by it for the Assessment Year 1988-89, the applicant invoked Section

NAVA BHARAT FERRO ALLOYS LTD. vs. THE DY.COMMI.OF INCOME TAX HYD.

256(2) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (for short, “the Act”), the Tribunal has referred the following question of law arising out of order dt.26.2.1996 in I.T.A. No.1059/Hyd/1996, for the assessment year 1987-88, for the opinion of this Court. “Whether in the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal is justified in coming

COMM.OF INCOME TAX VISAKHAPATNAM vs. BHANU ENTERPRISES KAKINADA

Section 256(1) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (for short ‘the Act’). The appellant is a manufacturing unit and is extended with the High Tension Power Supply by the then A.P. State Electricity Board. During the year 1988-89, the power tariff was revised substantially. Challenging the same, the applicant filed writ petition before this Court, and on dismissal

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

Bench: The Appellate Commissioner. On All The Three Aspects, Referred To Above, The Appellate Authority Held In Favour Of The Respondent. In The Further Appeal Filed By The Department Before The Tribunal, The View Taken By The Appellate Authority Was Confirmed.

disallowed ones are (a) expenditure incurred for travelling of the employees for the purpose of business; (b) expenditure incurred for wooden partition, electric wiring, power connection, interior layout and carpeting etc., in the business premises; and (c) the perquisites for each employee. Not satisfied with the order passed by the Assessing Authority, the respondent preferred an appeal before the Appellate

COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX vs. M/S K.VENKATESWARA RAO

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

disallowances made by the Assessing Officer, the apepllant preferred first appeal before the learned CIT(Appeals) who granted partial relief to the appellant. 2.1 Being aggrieved by the order passed by the learned Page 2 of 14 O/TAXAP/186/2003 JUDGMENT CIT(A) the appellant as well as respondent preferred appeals before the Tribunal, Ahmedabad Bench. The Tribunal vide impugned orders dismissed

Andhra Pradesh Fibres Limited, vs. Addl. Commissioner of Income Tax,

disallowances are made, the mere absence of the discussion of the provisions of Section 80IB(13) read with Section 80IA (9) would not mean that the AO had not applied his mind to the said provisions. As pointed out in Kelvinator of India's case (supra) [CIT Vs. Kelvinator of India Ltd. (2002) 256

The Commissioner of Income Tax (Central) vs. K. V. Srinivasa Rao

256], this Court was dealing with an appeal against the judgment of the High Court affirming the order of the Sessions Judge whereby the appellant and three other persons were convicted under Section 302 read with Section 34IPC. While reappreciating the evidence on record, this Court noticed that in the cross-examination of PW 4 Sube Singh, a suggestion

M/s. Kamma Sangaham, vs. The Director of Income -Tax (Exemptions),

Section 263 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 [hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act 1961’]. 4. In appeal, the CIT(A) upheld the order passed by the assessing officer, which was also affirmed by the Tribunal in appeal filed by the assessee. The assessee carried the matter to this Court in ITA No.271 of 2005, which was disposed

The Commissioner of Income Tax vs. Shri Byru Venkateswarlu

Appeal is dismissed

Bench: RAMESH RANGANATHAN,M.SATYANARAYANA MURTHY

Disallowance of Dalali Rs.2,136/- 15” 6. Counsel for the appellant has further contended that the Gujarat High Court in the case of National Textiles vs. Commissioner of Income Tax reported in 249 ITR 0125 in para 21-24 has observed as under: “21. The provisions of section 68 permitting the assessing officer to treat unexplained cash credit as income

The Commissioner of Income Tax, vs. M/s. K.C.P.Limited

In the result, the appeal fails and is hereby dismissed

disallowed. The assessee thereupon preferred an appeal before the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), who by an order dated 22.07.2010 dismissed the appeal preferred by the assessee. The assessee thereupon filed an appeal before the Tribunal. The Tribunal, by an order dated 15.07.2011, inter alia held that reopening of the assessment under Section 147 read with Section