The Commissioner of Income Tax-IV vs. M/s Planet Online Pvt Ltd

Bench: Us Challenging Order Dated 17.04.2013, Passed By The Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Chandigarh Bench 'B'. Chandigarh (Hereinafter Referred To As 'The

disallowing such a claim. As there is no tangible material on record that could have enabled the Assessing Officer to record satisfaction in terms of Section 14A of the Act, findings recorded by the CIT(A) and the ITAT that the Assessing Officer has failed to discharge this onus are neither perverse nor arbitrary and, therefore, do not call

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

Bench: ABHINAND KUMAR SHAVILI,V RAMASUBRAMANIAN

disallowed the claim made under Section 10(23G) of the Act. In addition, the Assessing Officer also proceeded to bring to tax Rs.5,27

The Commisioner of Income TAx-1 vs. Divya Shakti Granites Ltd.,

Bench: RAMESH RANGANATHAN,M.SATYANARAYANA MURTHY

27 - RFA No.178 OF 2015 C/W RFA CROB NO.19 OF 2015 9. AS TO WHO PERFORMED THE OBLIGATIONS AND WHO BREACHED THEM: 9.1 The vehement submission of learned Sr. Advocate Mr.Jayakumar S Patil that the obligation to obtain land conversion to commercial user in the text & context of Exs.P2, P3, P4 & P5 rests with the plaintiff himself, is difficult

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

Bench: The Learned

27, Vasant Vihar, New Delhi [the new asset]. 5. On 17.12.2012, a search and seizure operation was carried out under Section 132 of the Act on persons constituting the FIITJEE Group. The Assessee was also one of the persons searched. Thereafter, the AO issued a notice dated 13.08.2013 under Section 153A of the Act and during the ensuing proceedings, examined

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

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

The appeals are dismissed

Bench: J. UMA DEVI,V RAMASUBRAMANIAN

Section 37 is expenditure incurred for any purpose which is an offense or a purpose prohibited by law. It is thus manifest that it is principally the purpose for which the expenditure is incurred which would be decisive of whether it is liable to be disallowed. Regard must also be had to the fact that the expression “prohibited

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

Section 36 (1) (iii) regarding advance of borrowed funds, to its sister concern?; (2) Did the ITAT fall into error in holding that the sum of `25,04,385/- brought to tax by the AO on the interest free deposit of ` 1,75,50,000/- was not sustainable?; (3) Is the ITAT’s order- that the assessee’s revised

Commissioner of Income Tax vs. Agricultural Market Committee

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

disallowed by the Assessing Officer and after verifying the relevant records. Thus, a finding was recorded that the assessee Shivani Gupta 2024.01.19 12:57 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document ITA No.244 of 2011 and ITA No.512 of 2017 4 2024:PHHC:004741-DB had not furnished any inaccurate particulars and the Assessing Officer as well

Mr. K.S.N.Raju vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax,

Bench: ANIS,SANJAY KUMAR

disallowing the same. Whereas; on account of failure to take into consideration the evidence of the prosecution as regard the remaining accused, she prays to allow Criminal Appeal Nos. 419 and 420 of 2016. 7. This being the first Appellate Court, as required by law we undertook the exercise of re-appreciating, re-examining and re-analyzing of prosecution evidence

THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX vs. SRI PINNAMANENI PARANDHAMAIAH

In the result, the appeal is allowed

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

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 13.04.2017 passed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (hereinafter referred to as 'the tribunal' for short). The subject matter of the appeal pertains to the Assessment year 2012-13. The appeal was admitted

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

CHENNAKESAVA PHARMACEUTICALS VIJAYAWADA vs. THE COMI.OF INCOMETAX VIJ.

In the result, all the appeals are allowed setting aside the common

Bench: GODA RAGHURAM,M.S.RAMACHANDRA RAO

27-3-1987 under Section 143 (3) of the Act. The assessing officer later passed orders under Section 271 (1) (c) of the Act levying a penalty of Rs.50,000, Rs.62,000 and Rs.70,985/- respectively for each of the above three years. 4. Challenging the same, the assessee filed appeals to the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals

THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX vs. K.VENKATESWARLU

Accordingly they are dismissed

Bench: V.ESWARAIAH,K.G.SHANKAR

27, 49, 101 of 2002 AND I.T.T.A.No.203 of 2003 COMMON JUDGMENT: Per Hon’ble Sri Justice V.Eswaraiah) Sri J.V.Prasad, the learned Standing Counsel for Income Tax submits that all these appeals are covered by the Judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Kvaverner John Brown Engg. (India) P.Ltd v. Asst. C.I.T (SC) against the Revenue and are liable

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

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

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

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

27-09-2011, IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE AND EQUITY. 3 THESE ITAs COMING ON FOR HEARING, THIS DAY, ALOK ARADHE J., DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: JUDGMENT These appeals under Section 260A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’ for short) have been preferred by the assessee. I.T.A.No.191/2011 pertains to Assessment year 2005- 06, whereas