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

260A of the Act is barred. To that extent, the Senior Counsel is correct and is well supported by the ratio in S.P.Mansinghka (P) Ltd. The said case arose under Section 55 of the 1922 Act which is the precursor of Section 256(1) of the Act. Ruling on the scope of the said provision, the Division Bench

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

260A of the Act is barred. To that extent, the Senior Counsel is correct and is well supported by the ratio in S.P.Mansinghka (P) Ltd. The said case arose under Section 55 of the 1922 Act which is the precursor of Section 256(1) of the Act. Ruling on the scope of the said provision, the Division Bench

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

260A of the Act is barred. To that extent, the Senior Counsel is correct and is well supported by the ratio in S.P.Mansinghka (P) Ltd. The said case arose under Section 55 of the 1922 Act which is the precursor of Section 256(1) of the Act. Ruling on the scope of the said provision, the Division Bench

COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-II, HYDERABAD vs. M/s. The A.P.Vardhaman(Mahila)Cooperative Urban

In the result, for the above reasons, these appeals fail and

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

260A of the Act is barred. To that extent, the Senior Counsel is correct and is well supported by the ratio in S.P.Mansinghka (P) Ltd. The said case arose under Section 55 of the 1922 Act which is the precursor of Section 256(1) of the Act. Ruling on the scope of the said provision, the Division Bench

COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-TDA vs. M/S.IDEA CELLULAR LTD

Bench: SUJOY PAUL,NAMAVARAPU RAJESHWAR RAO

260A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (‘Act’ for short) against order dated 01.09.2017, passed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (‘Tribunal’ for short) in the case of Keshav Power Ltd. in ITA No. 4277/DEC/2015, pertaining to Assessment Year 2011-12. 2. The assessee has earned exempt/dividend income of Rs.88,83,863/-. The assessee applying Section

The Principal Commissioner of Income Tax vs. M/s.Midwest Granites Private Limited

Appeal stands dismissed accordingly

Bench: RAMESH RANGANATHAN,KONGARA VIJAYA LAKSHMI

Section 260A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 [‘Act’ for short] assailing the order of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal “C” Bench, Bangalore [‘Tribunal’ for short] dated 17.01.2018 passed in ITA No.206/Pan/2016 relating to the Assessment Year 2012-13. 2. The revenue has filed the appeal raising the following substantial question of law No.1 to 6: 1. “Whether

PR COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX vs. R SURYANARAYANA

In the result, the appeal filed by the revenue stands

Bench: RAMESH RANGANATHAN,KONGARA VIJAYA LAKSHMI

Section 260A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (the ‘Act’ in brevity) is directed against the order dated 16th August, 2017 passed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, “A” Bench, Kolkata (the ‘Tribunal’ in short) in ITA No.2041/Kol/2014 for the assessment year 2010-11. The revenue has raised the following substantial questions of law: (i) Whether on the facts

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

260A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as the Act for short) has been preferred by the assessee. The subject matter of the appeal pertains to the Assessment year 2010-11. The appeal was admitted by a bench of this Court vide order dated 24.01.2018 on the following substantial questions of law: (a) Whether in the facts

Principal Commissioner of Income Tax-1 vs. M/s Sri Sri Gruha Nirman India Pvt. Ltd.

Appeals are dismissed

Bench: P.SAM KOSHY,NARSING RAO NANDIKONDA

disallowed. The Assessing Officer for the Assessment Year 2012-13 also took a stand similar Digitally Signed By:VAISHALI CHAUHAN Signing Date:10.01.2024 15:43:36 Signature Not Verified ITA 1021/2019 & 157/2023 Page 6 of 9 pages to the one pertaining to the Assessment Year 2011-12 as regards addition under Section 40(a)(ia) of the Act, thereby adding

The Commissioner of Income Tax IV vs. M/s. Nav Bharat Enterprises Limited

disallowance of deduction under section 14A made by assessing authority even though the same is in accordance with law? (12) Whether the order of the tribunal can be said as perverse in nature as the tribunal has relied on its earlier decisions which have not reached finality since appeals preferred by Revenue under section 260A

The Commissioner of Income- Tax - V, vs. M/s. Krishnaveni Constructions,

Bench: RAMESH RANGANATHAN,M.SATYANARAYANA MURTHY

Section 260A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 challenging the order dated 21.08.2009 of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, “B” Bench, Bangalore (‘Tribunal’ - 4 - for short) in ITA No.217/Bang/2009 relating to the assessment year 2005-06. 4. These appeals were admitted to consider the following substantial questions of law: In ITA No.548/2015: “Whether on the facts and in the circumstances

PRL COMMISSOER OF INCOME TAX vs. SRISURAM VENKATESWARA REDDY

In the result, appeal filed by the revenue fails and is

Bench: RAMESH RANGANATHAN,KONGARA VIJAYA LAKSHMI

Section 260A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as the Act for short) has been preferred by the assessee against the order dated 19.01.2018 passed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal. The subject matter of the appeal pertains to the Assessment year 2008-2009. The appeal was admitted by a bench of this 3 Court

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

Bench: The Learned

260A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 [Act] impugning an order dated 25.09.2024 [impugned order] passed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal [ITAT] in ITA No.3426/Del/2019 in respect of Assessment Year [AY] 2011-12. 2. The impugned order is a common order passed by the learned ITAT in ITA No.3426/Del/2019 and ITA No.5892/Del/2015. However, as stated above, the present appeal

Commissioner of Income Tax-V, vs. Sri S.Venkat Reddy, (PAN ALAPS4009A)

In the result, the appeal fails and is hereby

disallowance under Section 14A of the Act. The assessee thereupon filed an appeal before the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), who by an order dated 03.07.2006 partly allowed the appeal preferred by the assessee. The assessee as well as the revenue approached the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal by filing appeals. The Tribunal, 5 by an order dated 17.05.2013 partly allowed

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

260A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (for short, 'the Act, 1961) aggrieved by the order, dated 20.07.2012 tn ITA No.lO95/Hyd/2009, dated 2O.O7.20L2, passed by the lncome-Tax Appellate Tribunal, Bench B', Hyderabad, (for short, 'the Tribunal') for the Assessment Year 2006-2007 . 2. Brief facts of the case are that the assessee is a Iimited company engaged

Commissioner of Income Tax vs. Dr. T.Ravi Kumar

The appeal is disposed of

260A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as the Act for short) has been preferred by the revenue. The subject matter of the appeal pertains to the Assessment year 2009-10. The appeal was admitted by a bench of this Court vide order dated 01.03.2013 on the following substantial questions of law: (i) Whether the Tribunal

VENKATESWARA HATCHARIES LTD vs. JT COMMISSIONER OF I.T.[ASSTS]

In the result, appeal fails and is hereby dismissed

Bench: J SREENIVAS RAO,ALOK ARADHE

Section 260A of the Income Tax Act, i 96 1 (hereinafter referred to as the Act,) has been preferred by the assessee. The subject matter of the appeal pertains to assessment year 1995-96. Ttre appeal was admitted on following substantial questions.of law: "L. Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the ITAT was correct

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

The appeals are allowed

Bench: N.TUKARAMJI,UJJAL BHUYAN

260A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (briefly referred to hereinafter as ‘the Act’) assailing the common order dated 21.03.2022 passed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, HCJ & NTRJ I.T.T.A.Nos.259 of 2022 & batch 2 Hyderabad Bench ‘A’, Hyderabad (briefly referred to hereinafter as ‘Tribunal’) disposing of the following appeals corresponding to the relevant assessment years: Sl.No. & Appellant