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

The appeal is disposed of

1. THE DIRECTOR OF INCOME-TAX EXEMPTIONS, C.R. BUILDINGS QUEENS ROAD, BANGALORE. 2. THE DEPUTY DIRECTOR OF INCOME TAX (EXMP), CIRCLE-17(2), C.R. BUILDING QUEENS ROAD, BANGALORE. ... APPELLANTS (By Sri. K.V. ARAVIND, ADV.,) AND: INDIA HERITAGE FOUNDATION GOKULAM COMPLEX 8TH MILE, KANAKAPURA ROAD DODDAKALLASANDRA BANGALORE-560062. ... RESPONDENT (By Ms. VANI H, ADV.) - - - THIS ITA IS FILED UNDER SECTION

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 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

1) to the assessee. The assessing officer by an order dated 26.03.1999 passed an order of assessment and inter alia quantified the total taxable income at Rs.8,38,38,080/-. 100% Depreciation claimed by the assessee on pollution control equipment worth Rs.4,93,00,000/- was 6 disallowed and 80% interest on the amount advanced to Madhya Pradesh State Electricity

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

disallowance under Section 80C of the Act and to adopt the guideline value as per Section 50C of the Act after providing an opportunity of hearing to the assessee. The assessee thereupon filed an appeal before the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (hereinafter referred to as 'the tribunal' for short). The tribunal by an order dated 28.11.2014 dismissed the appeal preferred

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 a show cause notice dated 25.02.2019 calling upon CFIPL to show cause why the assessment order dated 20.12.2016 not be set aside for the reasons mentioned in the aforesaid notice. 13. CFIPL responded to the show cause notice, inter alia

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

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

1. THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX C.R. BUILDING, QUEENS ROAD BANGALORE. 2. THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX BANGALORE-I, C.R. BUILDING QUEENS ROAD, BANGALORE. ... APPELLANTS (BY SRI. K.V. ARAVIND, ADV.,) AND: M/S. CHEMSWORTH PVT. LTD., KIMWELL HOUSE 11, TUMKUR ROAD, BANGALORE-560022. ... RESPONDENT (BY SRI. A. SHANKAR, SR. COUNSEL A/W SRI. M. LAVA, ADV.) - - - THIS ITA IS FILED UNDER SECTION

Director of Income Tax (International Taxation) vs. Dr. K. Kalpana Reddy

Bench: M.GANGA RAO,RAMESH RANGANATHAN

disallow the claim of deduction? 2. Facts giving rise to filing of this appeal briefly stated are that the assessee is a banking company. The assessee filed return of income for Assessment Year 2007-08 on 29.10.2007 declaring total income of Rs.593,48,70,178/-. The return was processed under Section 143(1

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

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

disallow the claim of exemption under Sections 54EC and 54F, after giving opportunity of being heard to the assessee. This order was appealed by the assessee by filing I.T.A.No.178/Vizag/2015. On similar facts, another assessee by name Y.V.Ramana, also filed an appeal in I.T.A.No.177/Vizag/2015. Both were heard together and disposed of by a common order, which is assailed

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

disallowance of expenditure of Rs.1344,63,25,000/- under Section 40(a)(ia) of the Act. According to the CIT, the aforementioned sum claimed as expenditure towards import value of machinery, spares and raw materials and charged to the P&L account would not be eligible for deduction since the Assessee had not deducted tax under Section 195(1

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. 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

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

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

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

disallowance under Section 14A was not worked out.” 3. In W.P.(C) 2795/2008 (for AY 2005-06) the allegations and grounds of reassessment notice were identical. The AO felt that mixing up of trading sales and absence of unit specific profit and loss accounts led to excess deduction under Section 80IB to the extent of ₹ 1

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

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 [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 on 28.02.2016 by the CIT. After considering the reply filed by the assessee, order under Section 263 of the Act was passed by the CIT on 16.03.2016. Aggrieved by the order, the assessee filed an appeal