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

Section 263 of the Act, as under: 10 [2003] 259 ITR 502 (Guj.) CVNR, J & CKR, J RC 18/2001 12 a) The Commissioner has to be satisfied of twin conditions, namely, (i) the order of the Assessing Officer sought to be revised is erroneous; and (ii) it is prejudicial to the interests of the Revenue. If one of them

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 ITR 1 (Del) (FB)] , when

The Director of Income Tax (Exemptions) vs. G Pulla Reddy Chritable Trust

In the result, the orders passed by the Commissioner of

Bench: CHALLA KODANDA RAM,G.CHANDRAIAH

Section 263 of the Act was issued by the Commissioner of Income Tax inter alia on the ground that income assessed as income from business in respect of sale of properties as income from capital gains to disallow

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

Section 263 of the Act, as under: a) The Commissioner has to be satisfied of twin conditions, namely, (i) the order of the Assessing Officer sought to be revised is erroneous; and (ii) it is prejudicial to the interests of the Revenue. If one of them is absent - if the order of the Income Tax Officer is erroneous

Andhra PRadesh Pradesh Fibres Limited vs. Assistant commissioner of Income Tax

In the result, the order passed by the

Bench: V.V.S.RAO,SANJAY KUMAR

disallowed 100% depreciation on pollution control equipments amounting to Rs.4,93,00,000/-. The assessing officer also taxed the notional income on the amount of loan advanced to Madhya Pradesh State Electricity Board. The said order was subject matter of challenge before the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals). The Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) by an order dated 30.08.2010 held

The Commissioner of the Income Tax IV vs. Satya Prasad Anagani,

In the result, we do not find any merit in the

Section 263 of the Act to the assessee and held that non consideration of disallowable expenditure under Section 14A of the Act is erroneous

The Pr. Commissioner of Income vs. Shri. Vishnu Mohan Reddy Chintapally

Appeal is disposed of

Bench: J SREENIVAS RAO,ALOK ARADHE

disallowance of expenditure for personal use. 12. The learned PCIT exercising its powers under Section 263 of the Act, issued

PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-I vs. A.V. V. VARAPRASAD

Bench: C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY,T.AMARNATH GOUD

263 of the Act, on 19.06.2014, calling upon the explanation from the assessee, as to why the assessment order dated 16.01.2013, shall not be reviewed. It was stated thereunder, that the Commissioner of Income Tax, proposed to review the assessment order by denying exemption granted by the AO under Sections 54EC and 54F towards investments in capital gains

The Commissioner of Income Tax-IV, Hyderabad. vs. Prithvi Information Solutions P Ltd.,

Section 263 of the Act. It was held that the CIT “could not unilaterally direct the AO to disallow the same

The Commissioner of Income Tax-III vs. M/s. Surya Laxmi Cotton Mills Ltd.,

Bench: RAMESH RANGANATHAN,M.SATYANARAYANA MURTHY

Section 263 by the Comm ssue of disallowance of payment was no business need of the as payment? Both the counsels

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

Bench: ABHINAND KUMAR SHAVILI,V RAMASUBRAMANIAN

disallowed under Section 40(a) of the Act. Further, assessee did not make any payment and reversed the provision during the year ending March 31, 2008. In substance, assessee's case is, the original provision was not allowed as deduction and therefore reversal of the same cannot be taxed again. I.T.A No.71/2017 C/W I.T.A No.785/2017 13 16. Shri. Suryanarayana contended

The Commissioner of Income Tax [Central] vs. Akula Nageswara Rao

The appeals stand dismissed

Bench: SANJAY KUMAR,GUDISEVA SHYAM PRASAD

disallowed in respect of Barotiwala Unit during the assessment year 2012-13. Accordingly, show cause notice under Section 263 of the Act was issued

The Principal Commissioner of Income Tax-IV vs. M/s.Parexel International [India] Pvt Ltd

Appeal stands dismissed and the substantial questions of law are answered against the

Bench: : The Hon’Ble Justice T.S. Sivagnanam & The Hon’Ble Justice Hiranmay Bhattacharyya Date : 10Th May, 2022. Appearance:- Ms. Smita Das De, Adv.

263 of the Act wherein the assessment was set aside on the grounds of failure to make enquiry and addition under Section 36(i)(v)(a) read with Section 2(24)(x) of the Act on account of Employees’ Contribution to Provident Fund due to non-deposit of contribution within the date to the appropriate authority. Mr. Khaitan, appearing

Commissioner of Income Tax , vs. Sri M. Brahmaji

The appeal is dismissed

Bench: RAMESH RANGANATHAN,M.SATYANARAYANA MURTHY

Section 263 except in relation to royalty. The impugned order records as follows:- “The learned counsel pointed out that in pursuance to the impugned order of the learned CIT, the learned Additional CIT, Range-9, New Delhi has passed the order dated 22.03.2004 wherein no disallowances

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

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

The appeals are allowed

Bench: N.TUKARAMJI,UJJAL BHUYAN

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 Reddy, learned counsel

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

The appeals are allowed

Bench: N.TUKARAMJI,UJJAL BHUYAN

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 Reddy, learned counsel

The Prl Commissioner of Income Tax [Central] vs. G Sanjay Chowdhary

Bench: CHALLA KODANDA RAM,G.CHANDRAIAH

Section 263 of the Act as they have not been challenged and this is the revenue’s appeal. 3. The appellant contends that the following substantial questions of law arise:- “1. Whether the Hon’ble Member of ITAT erred in law in agreeing with the observations of CIT(A) in restricting the disallowance