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

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 for the assessees/appellants

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

The appeals are allowed

Bench: N.TUKARAMJI,UJJAL BHUYAN

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 for the assessees/appellants

The Director of Income Tax, (Exemptions) vs. Royal Education Society

In the result, the appeal is disposed of

Bench: ANIS,SANJAY KUMAR

264 of the Act. The Supreme Court in RAJESH JHAVERI supra has held that an intimation under Section 143(1) of the Act cannot be treated as an order of assessment. In the instant case, admittedly, no original assessment was made in case of the assessee. The assessee has made a claim in the return filed in response

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

264-266/Del/2013 and ITA No. 635/Del/2013). 2. The revenue urges the following substantial questions of law for the decision of this Court: (1) Did the ITAT fall into error in its interpretation of Section 36 (1) (iii) regarding advance of borrowed funds, to its sister concern?; (2) Did the ITAT fall into error in holding that

THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-I, vs. AYYAPPA INFRA PROJECTS PVT LTD.,

Bench: RAMESH RANGANATHAN,M.SATYANARAYANA MURTHY

disallowed the expense which was debited in the Profit & Loss Account. Against Ext.P3 Order dated 17.12.2010 passed by the assessing authority, the petitioner filed a Revision Petition under section 264

The Commissioner of income Tax-II vs. M/s.Ideal Industrial Explosives Ltd

Bench: RAMESH RANGANATHAN,M.SATYANARAYANA MURTHY

Section 115JA(2), which speaks of the provisions made for meeting liabilities, other than ascertained liabilities. The Honourable Supreme Court in (2008) 305 ITR 409 [Commissioner of Income Tax-IV v. HCL Comnet Systems and Services Ltd.] categorically held that the addition made under clause(c); of the provision for bad and doubtful debts cannot be permitted. However, clause

The Commissioner of Income Tax - IV vs. M/s. Mekins Agro Product (P) Ltd.

disallowance. We feel the assessee should be allowed to write back the depreciation for this year and even for previous and then allow the same to be carried forward for application for subsequent years. It is for the assessee to write back depreciation and if Hi >- V II done the Assessing Officer will modify the assessment determining higher income

ELICO LIMITED, HYDERABAD. vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, HYDERABAD.

The appeals are allowed

Bench: The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-Ii, Hyderabad & The Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Hyderabad Bench 'A', Hyderabad, Having Been Dismissed, The Assessee Filed The Present Appeals. 2. Sri S.Dwarakanath, Learned Counsel For The Appellant, Has Placed Before Us The Judgment In Commissioner Of Income Tax Vs. Alom Extrusions Limited1 & Submitted That In The Said Judgment, The Supreme Court Held That Deletion Of Second Proviso To Section 43-B Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (For Short, 'The Act'), Based On Which Disallowance Was Made Being Curative, Has Retrospective Operation From 01-04-1988, The Date On Which The Said Provision Was Introduced. He Has Accordingly Submitted That In View Of The Said Judgment, The Appeals Deserve To Be Allowed. Sri B.Narasimha Sarma, Learned Senior Standing Counsel For Income Tax Department, Has Fairly Conceded The Submission Of Leaned Counsel For The Appellant.

disallowance was made being curative, has retrospective operation from 01-04-1988, the date on which the said provision was introduced. He has accordingly submitted that in view of the said judgment, the appeals deserve to be allowed. Sri B.Narasimha Sarma, learned senior standing counsel for Income Tax Department, has fairly conceded the submission of leaned counsel for the appellant

ELICO LIMITED, HYDERABAD. vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, HYDERABAD.

The appeals are allowed

Bench: The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-Ii, Hyderabad & The Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Hyderabad Bench 'A', Hyderabad, Having Been Dismissed, The Assessee Filed The Present Appeals. 2. Sri S.Dwarakanath, Learned Counsel For The Appellant, Has Placed Before Us The Judgment In Commissioner Of Income Tax Vs. Alom Extrusions Limited1 & Submitted That In The Said Judgment, The Supreme Court Held That Deletion Of Second Proviso To Section 43-B Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (For Short, 'The Act'), Based On Which Disallowance Was Made Being Curative, Has Retrospective Operation From 01-04-1988, The Date On Which The Said Provision Was Introduced. He Has Accordingly Submitted That In View Of The Said Judgment, The Appeals Deserve To Be Allowed. Sri B.Narasimha Sarma, Learned Senior Standing Counsel For Income Tax Department, Has Fairly Conceded The Submission Of Leaned Counsel For The Appellant.

disallowance was made being curative, has retrospective operation from 01-04-1988, the date on which the said provision was introduced. He has accordingly submitted that in view of the said judgment, the appeals deserve to be allowed. Sri B.Narasimha Sarma, learned senior standing counsel for Income Tax Department, has fairly conceded the submission of leaned counsel for the appellant

Commissioner of Income Tax -II vs. M/S Sri Ramanjaneya Poultry Farm Pvt., Ltd.,

Bench: CHALLA KODANDA RAM,G.CHANDRAIAH

264 Rs.3,49,24,636.00 Interest U/s 244-A Rs.1,78,94,256.00 TOTAL REFUND DUE TO THE ASSESSEE Rs.5,28,18,892.00 The above amount is calculated as per the information available in the records and subject to the verification of the payment made by the assessee. CS(OS) No.713/2006 Page 11 of 14 Sd/- (Sanjay Gosain) Income

The Commissioner of Income Tax-I vs. Ascend Telecom Infrastructure Private Limited

Bench: RAMESH RANGANATHAN,M.SATYANARAYANA MURTHY

disallowance made by the Assessing Officer and in allowing the amortization of expenses. Consequently, Ground No.B (1 to 6) of the Revenue’s appeal for Assessment Year 2008-09 and Ground No.C for Assessment Year 2009-10 are dismissed.” 17. In our opinion, the matter is squarely covered by a decision of the cognate Bench of this Court