The Commissioner of Income Tax(Central) vs. M/s.Madhu Enterprises

Bench: The Learned

disallowance under Section 54F of the Act in terms of the order dated 18.03.2019 passed under Section 250 of the Act. The Assessee being aggrieved by the learned CIT(A)’s order preferred an appeal before the learned ITAT [being ITA 3426/Del/2019], which was allowed by the learned ITAT by the impugned order. The present appeal by the Revenue

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

disallowed the entire claim of deduction under Section 8O-lA of the Act, 19 61. 5. On the other hand, learned counset for respondent while supporting the orders passed by the CIT rA) and the ITAT contending; that the power which was transfer red from power unit to ferro is to be charged with recovery ra-e of power

The Prl Commissioner of Income Tax (Exemptions) vs. Institute of Development and Research in Banking Technology

Bench: ABHINAND KUMAR SHAVILI,V RAMASUBRAMANIAN

disallowance of deduction on reversal of provision in respect of Rs.5,27,67,000/- and Rs.79,12,000/-. 10. On further appeal, the ITAT, vide order dated August 26, 2016 has dismissed ITA No.1124/Bang/2014. 11. Shri Suryanarayana submitted that: • the AO reopened the case under Section

Commissioner of Income Tax vs. J Charan Kumar [HUF]

The appeals are dismissed

Bench: J. UMA DEVI,V RAMASUBRAMANIAN

26. We at the outset note that the disallowance which is contemplated under Section 37 is expenditure incurred for any purpose

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

disallowance can be made.” 9. It is argued by the revenue that ITAT has failed to appreciate that for the claim of interest, it is necessary that, firstly, the money ITA Nos.512/2013, 516/2013, 517/2013, 518/2013, 519/2013 & 526/2013 Page 10 must have been borrowed by the assessee, secondly, it must have been borrowed for the purpose of business and thirdly

PRL COMM OF INCOME TAX-2, HYDERABAD vs. M/S NUZIVIDU SWATHI COASTAL CONSORTIUM, HYDERABAD

In the result, the appeal is disposed of

Bench: M.GANGA RAO,RAMESH RANGANATHAN

disallowed. The tribunal further held that the issue pertaining to Section 115JAA of the Act was not argued and the assessee cannot go back to the computation on the issue pertaining to Section 14A of the Act. In the result, the appeal was dismissed. In the aforesaid factual background, the assessee has filed this appeal. 6 4. Learned counsel

Commissioner of Income Tax vs. Agricultural Market Committee

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

Sections reads thus:- “26. Purpose for which the market development fund may be expended.The marketing development fund shall be utilised out of following purposes: (i) better marketing of agricultural produce ; (ii) marketing of agricultural produce on co-operative lines ; (iii) collection and dissemination of market rates and news ; (iv) grading and standardisation of agricultural produce; (v) general improvements

AD-AGE OUTDOOR ADVERTISING P LTD., HYDERABAD. vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONEER OF INCOME TAX, HYDERABAD.

Bench: T.VINOD KUMAR,M.S.RAMACHANDRA RAO

disallowing the deduction of Rs. 45,00,000/-, the CIT(A)recorded the following reasons:- a) As; there was no specific provision under Section 36 of the Act relating to contribution to leave encashment fund, the amount of Rs. 45,00,000/- paid into the said fund by the assessee had no statutory recognition. b) There was no ascertained liability

The Commissioner of Incoe Tax III, vs. Raj Breeders and Hatcheries (PVT) Liited,

Bench: RAMESH RANGANATHAN,M.SATYANARAYANA MURTHY

disallowing the deduction of Rs. 45,00,000/-, the CIT(A)recorded the following reasons:- a) As; there was no specific provision under Section 36 of the Act relating to contribution to leave encashment fund, the amount of Rs. 45,00,000/- paid into the said fund by the assessee had no statutory recognition. b) There was no ascertained liability

Commissioner of income tax, vs. M/s. R.K. Palace,

Bench: RAMESH RANGANATHAN,M.SATYANARAYANA MURTHY

disallowing the deduction of Rs. 45,00,000/-, the CIT(A)recorded the following reasons:- a) As; there was no specific provision under Section 36 of the Act relating to contribution to leave encashment fund, the amount of Rs. 45,00,000/- paid into the said fund by the assessee had no statutory recognition. b) There was no ascertained liability

Commissioner of Income Tax-I vs. Agricultural Market Committee

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

disallowing the deduction of Rs. 45,00,000/-, the CIT(A)recorded the following reasons:- a) As; there was no specific provision under Section 36 of the Act relating to contribution to leave encashment fund, the amount of Rs. 45,00,000/- paid into the said fund by the assessee had no statutory recognition. b) There was no ascertained liability

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

Bench: P.SAM KOSHY,NARSING RAO NANDIKONDA

disallowed the entire claim of ded the Act, 1961. 5. On the other hand, le while supporting the orders Passe contending that the Power which unit to ferro is to be charged wi not at which the Power Purch assessee. He further argued companies are supplying Power Rs.2.21 to 3.15 per unit. He agreed willAhe assessee's con ntion that

The Commissioner of Income Tax -V, vs. M/S Secunderabad Club

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

26,93,63,940/-; it had claimed deduction under Section 80-IB of the Act at ₹ 77,89,40,725/ The assessee manufactures mosquito repellants and has also traded, during the year in aerosols, oil spray, hand pumps, mats and coils. It had claimed deduction u/s 80-IB in respect of three units. The AO stated, in the impugned notice

Commissioner of IncomeTax-2, vs. Mr. Mustafa Alam Khan,

Appeal is allowed

Bench: SANJAY KUMAR,GUDISEVA SHYAM PRASAD

disallowed the appellant's claim for amortization of trademarks amounting to Rs. 25,23,333/- and allowed depreciation of Rs.6,30,834/-.The net addition of the difference of Rs. 18,92,500/- is therefore upheld. Grounds 3.1 to 3.3 also fail.” (emphasis supplied) 17. The Tribunal, by its order dated 8.9.2016 while considering the contention regarding the deduction claimed

THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, GUNTUR vs. M/s. Bommidala Brothers Limited

Bench: RAMESH RANGANATHAN,M.SATYANARAYANA MURTHY

disallowed under Section 80HHC of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as „the Act of 1961‟). 2. Retrospectivity given to Section 80HHC of the Act of 1961 has been held to be ultra vires by the Gujarat High Court and affirmed by Hon’ble the Supreme Court in the case of Commissioner of Income Tax v. Avani Exports

M/S. SREE TRADING CORPORATION vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD 4(1), HYDERABAD

Bench: N.TUKARAMJI,UJJAL BHUYAN

disallowed an amount of Rs.11,71,893.00 shown by the appellant as receipts from trade creditors. Consequently taxable income of the appellant was assessed at Rs.15,86,408.00. 6. Appellant preferred appeal before the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-V, Hyderabad (briefly referred to hereinafter as ‘CIT(A)’). By the appellate order dated 06.08.2004, CIT(A) upheld the order

Commissioner of Income Tax-1 vs. M/s. A.S. Raja Sons Enterprises (P) Ltd.,

Bench: 31.3.2000 I.E. The End Of The Relevant Accounting Year Even Though The Assessee Has Already Incurred Liability Of Excise Duty Of A Much Higher Value?

26,890/- which represented MODVAT credit of excise duty that remained unutilized by 31.3.2000 i.e. the end of the relevant accounting year? iii. Whether the ITAT has committed an error of law in upholding the disallowance of Rs.3,57,51,194/- in respect of Sales Tax Recoverable account, under Section

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

disallowed by the Act. In SETH M DALMIA supra, the Supreme Court referred to with approval the decision of the Bombay High Court in ‘COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX VS. H.H.MAHARANI VIJAYKUVERBA SAHEB OF MORVI’, (1975) 100 ITR 67, wherein the Bombay High Court while dealing with Section 12(2) of the Act, held that deduction permissible under the aforesaid provision