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

Bench: : The Hon’Ble Justice Surya Prakash Kesarwani & The Hon’Ble Justice Rajarshi Bharadwaj Date : 10Th April, 2024. Appearance: Mr. J. P. Khaitan, Senior Advocate Mr. Sanjay Bhowmick, Advocate Ms. Swapna Das, Advocate … For The Appellant. Ms. Smita Das De, Advocate … For The Respondent. 1. Heard Sri J. P. Khaitan, Learned Senior Advocate Assisted By Sri Sanjay Bhowmick, Learned Counsel For The Appellant/Assessee & Ms. Smita Das De, Learned Senior Standing Counsel For The Respondent. 2. The Assessment Years Involved In The Present Appeal Are Assessment Year 1999-2000 & Assessment Year 2000-01. By Order Dated 16.08.2012, This Appeal Was Admitted On The Following Substantial Questions Of Law :-

33,221/- as deductible expenditure was rejected under Section 43B of the Act, 1961. However, the assessing officer accepted the income from leasing of the hotel as income under the head “profits and gains from business and profession” and allowed depreciation restricting it to 50% of the claimed amount i.e. 50% of Rs.1,14,95,443/- on the ground that

COMMISSIONER OF INCOMETA VIZ vs. M/S RAJAM EXTRACTIONS PVT

The appeal is partly allowed

Bench: GODA RAGHURAM,M.S.RAMACHANDRA RAO

33,064/- claimed by the appellant was not allowable under Section 43B of the I.T.Act. (iii) Whether the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal is correct in law and on facts in upholding the disallowance

The Commissioner of Income tax III, vs. Biraj Kavar Galada

The appeals are disposed of

Bench: RAMESH RANGANATHAN,M.SATYANARAYANA MURTHY

disallowed? (ii) Whether the provisions of Section 14A of the Act read with Rule 8D of the Income Tax Rules should be made applicable to all pending matters as the same is clarifactory in nature in view of the consistent stands taken by the department? (iii) Whether the tribunal was correct in holding that the estimated expenditure cannot be treated

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

The appeals are dismissed

Bench: J. UMA DEVI,V RAMASUBRAMANIAN

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 is admittedly not classified as an offense. That then leaves us to examine whether the purpose underlying

Commissioner of Income Tax vs. Sri. B. Venkatesam,

The appeal stands disposed of with no order as to

33,064 claimed by the appellant was not allowable u/s 43B of the I.T. Act. 3. Whether the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal is correct in law and on facts in upholding the disallowance of a sum of Rs.1,19,07,989/- being the loss incurred on account of devaluation of rupee against US Dollars, holding the same

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

AD-AGE OUTDOOR ADVERTISING P LTD., HYDERABAD. vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONEER OF INCOME TAX, HYDERABAD.

Bench: T.VINOD KUMAR,M.S.RAMACHANDRA RAO

33. As regards the judgment in Textools (supra), the same will also not help the cause of the assessee as the issues with respect to implication of the proviso of Section 43-B(f) were not involved in the facts of said case rather it -22- was a case relating to gratuity fund covered under Section

The Commissioner of Incoe Tax III, vs. Raj Breeders and Hatcheries (PVT) Liited,

Bench: RAMESH RANGANATHAN,M.SATYANARAYANA MURTHY

33. As regards the judgment in Textools (supra), the same will also not help the cause of the assessee as the issues with respect to implication of the proviso of Section 43-B(f) were not involved in the facts of said case rather it -22- was a case relating to gratuity fund covered under Section

Commissioner of income tax, vs. M/s. R.K. Palace,

Bench: RAMESH RANGANATHAN,M.SATYANARAYANA MURTHY

33. As regards the judgment in Textools (supra), the same will also not help the cause of the assessee as the issues with respect to implication of the proviso of Section 43-B(f) were not involved in the facts of said case rather it -22- was a case relating to gratuity fund covered under Section

Commissioner of Income Tax-I vs. Agricultural Market Committee

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

33. As regards the judgment in Textools (supra), the same will also not help the cause of the assessee as the issues with respect to implication of the proviso of Section 43-B(f) were not involved in the facts of said case rather it -22- was a case relating to gratuity fund covered under Section

Kuchipudi Krishna Kishore vs. The DCIT

Accordingly the appeals deserves to be allowed by setting aside the impugned

Bench: P.SAM KOSHY,N.TUKARAMJI

disallowance. 6. On appeal. the Commissioner of lncome Tax (Appeals)_lll, Hyderabad vide order dated 30.03.2005 held that as per Section 10(33

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

In the result, we do not find any

Bench: ANIS,SANJAY KUMAR

disallowed the assessee's claim for deduction under Section 10B of the Act. 5. The Assessing Officer inter alia held that assessee is entitled to deduction under Section 10B of the Act only after verification and the contention of the assessee that old machinery from FFIPL was transferred to it only in April 2007 does not deserve acceptance

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

disallowed the assessee's claim for deduction under Section 10B of the Act. 5. The Assessing Officer inter alia held that assessee is entitled to deduction under Section 10B of the Act only after verification and the contention of the assessee that old machinery from FFIPL was transferred to it only in April 2007 does not deserve acceptance

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

33 of 36 Interest under Section 201 (1A) 80. The next question is about charging of interest under Section 201(1A). The view that while passing on the rents collected to the respective owners the Assessee should have deducted TDS. Further, that interest thereon under Section 201 (1A) of the Act was also liable to be paid. 81. While

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

Appeals of the Revenue are dismissed

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

33 of 36 Interest under Section 201 (1A) 80. The next question is about charging of interest under Section 201(1A). The view that while passing on the rents collected to the respective owners the Assessee should have deducted TDS. Further, that interest thereon under Section 201 (1A) of the Act was also liable to be paid. 81. While

Principal Commissioner of Income Tax-2 vs. M/s Indur Green Power Private Limited

In the result, all the appeals fail and are hereby

Bench: RAMESH RANGANATHAN,M.SATYANARAYANA MURTHY

33. To appoint any Directors or Managers of any subsidiary company or of any other Company in which this Company is or may be Interested. 34. To establish, provide, maintain and conduct or otherwise subsidise, research, laboratories and experimental workshop for scientific and technical research and experiments and undertake and carry on with all scientific and technical research experiments

Commissioner of Income Tax, vs. Agricultural Market Committee,

In the result, the appeal (ITA/70/2011) is allowed to the extent indicated

Bench: : The Hon’Ble Justice T.S. Sivagnanam & The Hon’Ble Justice Hiranmay Bhattacharyya Date : 20Th March, 2023 Appearance : Mr. C. Bhaskaran, Adv. Ms. Swapna Das, Adv. …For The Appellant. Mr. Aryak Dutt, Adv. …For The Respondent.. The Court : - This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Under Section 260A Of The Income Tax Act (The Act) Is Directed Against The Order Dated September 30, 2009 Passed By The Income Tax Appellate Tribunal “B” Bench, Kolkata In Ita No.2486/Kol/2007 For The Assessment Year 2003-2004. The Appeal Was Admitted On 18.03.2011 On The Following Substantial Questions Of Law:- “1. Whether The Tribunal Below, While Interpreting Section 36(1)(Viia)(A) Of The Income-Tax Act, 1961, Committed Substantial Error Of Law In Holding That Deduction Under The First Proviso Was Alternative To That Under Sub-Clause (A) & That No Deduction Under The First Proviso Was Allowable If Deduction Had Been Allowed Under Sub-Clause (A) Thereby Rejecting The Appellant’S

33,70,000/- under the first proviso ? 2. Whether the Tribunal below committed substantial error of law in holding that the proviso of sub-sections (2) and (3) inserted in Section 14A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 with effect from April 1,2007 and Rule 8D inserted in the Income Tax Rules 1962 on March 24, 2008 was procedural

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