M/s.Tata Teleservices Limited vs. Dy. Commissioner of Income Tax

Bench: SUJOY PAUL,NAMAVARAPU RAJESHWAR RAO

Section 36(1)(iii) of the Act. In this context, our attention was drawn to the following parts of the order passed by the CIT(A): “5.4…The above facts show that appellant has made Long Term Investment of Rs.119,75,81,172/- by taking the loan of Rs.119,00,00,000/- on which it has paid interest of Rs.5

COMM OF INCOME TAX, HYD vs. M/S. BALAN NATURAL FOOD PRIVATE LTD., HYD

Bench: RAMESH RANGANATHAN,KONGARA VIJAYA LAKSHMI

disallowed the aforesaid amount in terms of Section 14A of the Act. A sum of Rs.3,43,28,658/- being 5% thereof was estimated as expenditure incurred for earning such income. 3. The assessee, thereupon, filed an appeal. The Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) by an order dated 31.05.2011 partly allowed the appeal. Being aggrieved, the revenue as well

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

The appeal of the assessee is allowed

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

disallow any interest attributable to the loans given by the assessee- company to the said subsidiary company. The instant appeal was admitted on 20.07.2012, only for considering the following substantial question of law:- “Whether in the facts and circumstances of the case the ITAT was right in law in applying the ratio of this Hon'ble Court in the case

THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-IV, HYDERABAD vs. M/S NAVA BHARAT VENTURES LTD., HYDERABAD

Bench: P.SAM KOSHY,NARSING RAO NANDIKONDA

disallowed as assessee under Section 80-IA of the Rs.37,34,55,899 l- in resPect of assessment Year. Further

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

In the result, the appeal is disposed of

Bench: ANIS,SANJAY KUMAR

34(1)(b) the Income-tax Officer had not only the jurisdiction but it was his duty to levy tax on the entire income that had escaped assessment during that year. Thus, a three judge bench of the Supreme Court held that when there is a re-assessment or assessment under Section 147 of the Act, the original assessment proceeding

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

34,5i5.899/ - in respect of captive power plants for this assessmerrt vear. Further, the Assessing Officcr has restricted the deduc ion claimed by the assessee under Section 80 IA of the Act, 1961 from Rs.44,92,O4,89I/- to Rs.7,57,4U,99'2 l- by invoking the provisions of Section 80-IA(8) ar.rd Section

PRL COMM OF INCOME TAX-2, HYDERABAD vs. M/S NUZIVIDU SWATHI COASTAL CONSORTIUM, HYDERABAD

In the result, the appeal is disposed of

Bench: M.GANGA RAO,RAMESH RANGANATHAN

disallowed. The tribunal further held that the issue pertaining to Section 115JAA of the Act was not argued and the assessee cannot go back to the computation on the issue pertaining to Section 14A of the Act. In the result, the appeal was dismissed. In the aforesaid factual background, the assessee has filed this appeal. 6 4. Learned counsel

The Commissioner of Income Tax, vs. M/s. K.C.P.Limited

In the result, the appeal fails and is hereby dismissed

disallowed. The assessee thereupon preferred an appeal before the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), who by an order dated 22.07.2010 dismissed the appeal preferred by the assessee. The assessee thereupon filed an appeal before the Tribunal. The Tribunal, by an order dated 15.07.2011, inter alia held that reopening of the assessment under Section 147 read with Section

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

Bench: ANIS,SANJAY KUMAR

Sections 302, 201 r/w 34 of the Indian Penal Code and acquitting co-accused Nandkishor Balreddy Kolyame (Koltame) and Subhash Virbhadrappa Kumbhar. 2. Appellant Subhash Ganesh Gir has filed Criminal Appeal No. 418 of 2016 taking exception to the impugned Judgment and Order referred to above, whereas; State has filed two appeals viz. Criminal Appeal

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

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

34,646/- under Section 115 JB of the Act. 3. The respondent assessee had two units: One unit was located in a ITA No.365/2018 Page 2 of 9 non-STPI zone and hence its income was taxable. The other unit was located in a STPI zone in Gurgaon and its income was exempted under Section

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

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

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

34. It will also be gainful to reproduce paragraphs 39 and 40 of the Excide Industries Ltd to support our view that the liability incurred by the assessee did not qualify the requirement of Section 43-B(f) of the Act and hence were rightly disallowed

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

Bench: RAMESH RANGANATHAN,M.SATYANARAYANA MURTHY

34. It will also be gainful to reproduce paragraphs 39 and 40 of the Excide Industries Ltd to support our view that the liability incurred by the assessee did not qualify the requirement of Section 43-B(f) of the Act and hence were rightly disallowed

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

Bench: RAMESH RANGANATHAN,M.SATYANARAYANA MURTHY

34. It will also be gainful to reproduce paragraphs 39 and 40 of the Excide Industries Ltd to support our view that the liability incurred by the assessee did not qualify the requirement of Section 43-B(f) of the Act and hence were rightly disallowed

Commissioner of Income Tax-I vs. Agricultural Market Committee

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

34. It will also be gainful to reproduce paragraphs 39 and 40 of the Excide Industries Ltd to support our view that the liability incurred by the assessee did not qualify the requirement of Section 43-B(f) of the Act and hence were rightly disallowed

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

The appeal stands disposed of with no order as to

disallowance of `1,64,87,375 - disputed additional customs duty claimed by the assessee as a part of the landed cost of goods. 8. The facts, relevant to the question of deduction on account of additional customs duty, briefly stated are as follows: The appellant is, interalia, engaged in manufacturing and trading of products like de-oiled meals, industrial hard

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

Bench: RAMESH RANGANATHAN,M.SATYANARAYANA MURTHY

34. In that matter also, a similar argument, as in the present case, was advanced on behalf of the revenue, namely, that depreciation can be allowed as deduction only under section 32 of the Income Tax Act and not under general principles. The court rejected this argument. It was held that normal depreciation can be considered as a legitimate deduction

The Agricultural Market Committee vs. The Commissioner of Income Tax

The appeals stand dismissed

Bench: It & Is Contrary To The Decision Of Hon'Ble Supreme Court In The Case Of Esthuri Aswathiah 1 Gurbax Singh 2014.11.04 17:49 I Attest To The Accuracy & Integrity Of This Document High Court Chandigarh

Sections 143(3)/147 of the Act at an income of ` 21,89,760/-. Aggrieved by the order, the assessee filed appeal before the Commissioner of Income Tax (appeals) [CIT(A)]. Vide order dated 4.5.2007, Annexure A.II, the CIT(A) partly allowed the appeal giving relief of ` 18,73,720/-. Not satisfied with the order, the revenue filed appeal before