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

Bench: The Learned

disallowance under Section 54F of the Act in terms of the order dated 18.03.2019 passed under Section 250 of the Act. The Assessee being aggrieved by the learned CIT(A)’s order preferred an appeal before the learned ITAT [being ITA 3426/Del/2019], which was allowed by the learned ITAT by the impugned order. The present appeal by the Revenue

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 made by appellate authority under Section 80JJA of the Act by relying on its earlier order in case of assessee itself when said earlier order has not reached finality and even when the appellate authority rightly rejected said claim as deduction cannot be given in respect of additional wages paid on employment of new workmen during the previous year

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

29,643 Total Rs 2,51,96,577 Since this provision is not allowable, the amount of Rs 2,51,96,577 is 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

The Commissioner of Income Tax (Exemptions0 vs. Kalinga Cultural Trust

In the result, we do not find any

Bench: ANIS,SANJAY KUMAR

29,715/- under Section 10B of the Act. The Assessing Officer completed the assessment under Section 143(3) of the Act vide order dated 31.12.2010. Thereafter, there was a survey in the premises of the assessee on 05.11.2009 and simultaneously survey was also carried out in the premises of M/s Fiber and Fabrics International Private Limited (FFIPL), which

Principal Commissioner of Income Tax-5 vs. M/s. VBC Industries Limited

In the result, we do not find any

Bench: RAMESH RANGANATHAN,M.SATYANARAYANA MURTHY

29,715/- under Section 10B of the Act. The Assessing Officer completed the assessment under Section 143(3) of the Act vide order dated 31.12.2010. Thereafter, there was a survey in the premises of the assessee on 05.11.2009 and simultaneously survey was also carried out in the premises of M/s Fiber and Fabrics International Private Limited (FFIPL), which

Commissioner of Income Tax-III vs. V.Ramachandra Rao

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

Bench: CHALLA KODANDA RAM,G.CHANDRAIAH

disallowing the Appellant’s claim for deduction of expenditure incurred wholly and exclusively in connection with the transfer of shares on the ground that the expenditure was incurred voluntarily, when section 48(i) of the Act makes no distinction between voluntary or involuntary expenditure. 3 (ii) Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal

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

The appeals are dismissed

Bench: J. UMA DEVI,V RAMASUBRAMANIAN

disallowed. As noticed in the previous parts of this judgment, while examining the reach of the Explanation to Section 37, it would have to be found as a matter of fact that the expenditure was incurred for the commission of an offense as known in law or for a purpose prohibited. A breach of the Bar Council of India Rules

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

Bench: RAMESH RANGANATHAN,M.SATYANARAYANA MURTHY

29 provides that income from profits and gains of business shall be computed in accordance with section 30 to section 43C, That, section 32(1) of the Act provides for depreciation in respect of building, plant and machinery owned by the assessee and used for the business purposes. It further provides for deduction subject to section 34. In that matter

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

disallowed and that itself cannot be a ground for levying a penalty. He relied on Commissioner of Income Tax Vs. Reliance Petroproducts Pvt. Ltd.[1] a n d Commissioner of Income Tax Vs. SAS Pharmaceuticals[2]. 2. For the levy of penalty under Section 271 (1) (c) of the Act, the assessing officer has to form his own opinion

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

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

Section 80-IB of the Act at ₹ 77,89,40,725/ The assessee manufactures mosquito repellants and has also traded, during the year in aerosols, oil spray, hand pumps, mats and coils. It had claimed deduction u/s 80-IB in respect of three units. The AO stated, in the impugned notice that: “(a) in Para- (i) of notes of unit

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

29,837 under Section 24 of the Act. 43. During the assessment proceedings, in its reply dated 15th December 1997 to the query raised by the AO, the Assessee pointed out that there is nothing in law which prohibited the leasing out of stock and trade. It relied on the decision in CIT v. Chagan Das and Company

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

Appeals of the Revenue are dismissed

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

29,837 under Section 24 of the Act. 43. During the assessment proceedings, in its reply dated 15th December 1997 to the query raised by the AO, the Assessee pointed out that there is nothing in law which prohibited the leasing out of stock and trade. It relied on the decision in CIT v. Chagan Das and Company

THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (CENTRAL) HYD vs. RAJU NEURO AND MULTI SPECIALTIES PVT LTD., E.G.DIST

In the result, the appeal is disposed of

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

29,94,124/- as exemption under Section 80-IB(10) of the Act by declaring the flats sold 4 during the year in accordance with the "Percentage Completion Method". The Assessing Officer by an order dated 27.03.2014 inter alia held that there is no provision under Section 80-IB(10) of the Act to allow the proportionate deduction. Therefore

The Prl. Commissioner of Income Tax-1 vs. M/s Andhra Pradesh Handicrafts Development Corporation Ltd.

The appeal is disposed of with liberty as prayed for by the learned

Bench: ANIS,SANJAY KUMAR

Section 260-A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (for short, ‘the Act’) questioning the correctness and legality of order dated 07.03.2016 passed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, ‘A’ Bench, Bengaluru (for short, ‘Appellate Authority’) in ITA.No.518/Bang/2015 for the assessment year 2010-11. 3. This Court, admitted the appeal on 31.10.2017 to consider the following substantial question

The Commissioner of Income Tax V vs. Smt. Ch. Uma

section 154? (ii) Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case the Appellate Tribunal was right in law in sustaining the order of rectification passed by the Assessing Officer on 16.10.2008 when the CIT(A) had already recorded a fining that the appellant had continued its business during the year and no mistake was apparent from record

Commissioner of Income Tax vs. M/s Ch.Veeraju AND co.

section 154? (ii) Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case the Appellate Tribunal was right in law in sustaining the order of rectification passed by the Assessing Officer on 16.10.2008 when the CIT(A) had already recorded a fining that the appellant had continued its business during the year and no mistake was apparent from record

Commissioner of Income Tax - VI vs. M/s. S.P. Steels

section 154? (ii) Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case the Appellate Tribunal was right in law in sustaining the order of rectification passed by the Assessing Officer on 16.10.2008 when the CIT(A) had already recorded a fining that the appellant had continued its business during the year and no mistake was apparent from record

The Pr. Commissioner of Income-tax vs. D.L.V. Sridhar

Bench: D.V.S.S.SOMAYAJULU,RAMESH RANGANATHAN

disallowed the entire claim of Rs.1,48,89,090/- under section 10A of the Act. 5. The aforesaid addition was deleted by the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), who observed that the respondent-assessee was maintaining separate accounts for STPI and non-STPI unit, and the Assessing Officer had not been able to point out a single entry in respect