Principal Commissioner of Income Tax vs. M/s Nara Constructions,

Bench: CHALLA KODANDA RAM,C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY

disallowed while computing the total income is not deemed to be income in respect of which particulars have been concealed. 6. In the context of the present case, we would like to first reproduce clause (viii) of Section 36(1) of the Act as applicable in the Assessment Years 2003-2004 to 2009-2010, which reads:- “36. (1) The deductions

The Commissioner of Income Tax vs. Shri Byru Venkateswarlu

Appeal is dismissed

Bench: RAMESH RANGANATHAN,M.SATYANARAYANA MURTHY

Section 271(1)(c) solely because the additions were confirmed in the quantum appeal, without examining the issue again in penalty proceedings with reference to the law and principles underlying the levy of penalty?” (2 of 10) [ITA-341/2005] 3. Counsel for the appellant has contended that the Assessing Officer has considered the case of the assessee and observed

THE PRINCIPAL COMMR OF INCOME TAX-II vs. L.G.TRINADHA RAO

The appeal is allowed and the order passed by the

Bench: RAMESH RANGANATHAN,KONGARA VIJAYA LAKSHMI

disallowed, it would amount to concealment of income liable to penalty under section 271[1][c] of the Act. It is submitted

Commissioner of Income tAx, vs. Sri Padala Ramakrishna Reddy,

The appeals stand dismissed

Bench: RAMESH RANGANATHAN,M.SATYANARAYANA MURTHY

271 ITR 331 (SC), the meaning of the word "production" came up for consideration. The question which came before this Court was whether the ITAT was justified in holding that the assessee was entitled to deduction under Section 32A of the Income Tax Act, 1961, in respect of machinery used in mining activity ignoring the fact that the assessee

Commissioner of Income Tax-2, vs. Agricultural Market Committee,

The appeal of the assessee is allowed

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

271(1)(c) for furnishing inaccurate particulars/concealment of the income are being initiated separately on this issue.” Aggrieved by the order passed by the AO, the assessee filed appeal before the ld. CIT(A). The ld. CIT(A) however deleted the impugned disallowances with the following observations: “9. After considering rival contentions and perusing material on record, I find that

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

The appeals are allowed

Bench: N.TUKARAMJI,UJJAL BHUYAN

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 and Ms. K.Mamata Choudary, learned Standing

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

The appeals are allowed

Bench: N.TUKARAMJI,UJJAL BHUYAN

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 and Ms. K.Mamata Choudary, learned Standing

Commissioner of Income Tax-III, vs. M/s Sree Rayalaseema Green Energy Limited,

disallowed and added to the income of the assessee. Since I am satisfied that the assessee has furnished inaccurate particulars of its income, penalty proceedings under section 271(1

The Commissioner of Income Tax -III vs. Sri T.C. Reddy

The appeal stands dismissed

271(1)(c) r.w 274 of the Income-tax Act for concealment and furnishing of inaccurate particulars are initiated separately. (iv) The assessee has booked various expenses of contractual nature, vide order sheet entry dated 29.12.2009, the assessee was asked to show cause why the same should not disallowed u/s40a(ia). In response thereto the assessee has only filed copy

Commissioner of Income Tax vs. Agricultural Market Committee

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

Section 271(1)(c) of the Act were also initiated for claiming inaccurate expenditure and concealment of income of Rs.2,81,33,700/-. Facts of ITA No.512 of 2017 6. ITA No. 512 of 2017 has been filed by the Revenue which arises out of the order of the Tribunal dated 28.03.2017 (Annexure A-IV) wherein, it was held that

THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX III, vs. M/S. SAVIJANA SEA FOODS PVT. LTD.,

Appeals of the Revenue are dismissed

Bench: J SREENIVAS RAO,ALOK ARADHE

Section 260-A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 („Act‟) of which 1 is by the Assessee and 10 are by the Revenue. Apart from the facts being similar, the questions of law too are common to many of the appeals. They are accordingly disposed of by this common judgment. Background facts 2. The Assessee is engaged to the business

Commissioner of Income Tax, vs. M/s. Kokivenkateswara Reddy AND others,

Appeals of the Revenue are dismissed

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

Section 260-A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 („Act‟) of which 1 is by the Assessee and 10 are by the Revenue. Apart from the facts being similar, the questions of law too are common to many of the appeals. They are accordingly disposed of by this common judgment. Background facts 2. The Assessee is engaged to the business

Commissioner of Income Tax II vs. P. Govinda Rao

The appeals are dismissed

Bench: Us. For Convenience We Are Noticing The Facts Of Appeal Bearing D.B. Income Tax Appeal No.67/2007, Rajasthan Art Emporium V. Dcit, Circle, Jodhpur.

Section 271(1)(c) of the Act. An appeal giving challenge to the order passed by the Assessing Officer also came to be disposed of under an order dated 9.4.1999 by holding as under:- “14. I have considered the submissions very carefully in this regard. I have also seen the reasoning given by the AO for disallowing