The Commissioner of Income Tax -1 vs. R.S. Sudheesh

disallowed as 'capital loss' and the advances amounting to Rs.2,32,93,575/- given for acquisition of revenue items subsequently written off are held as allowable under Section 37 of the Act as 'current expenses'. 2 (1974) 96 ITR 568 (J&K) 3 (1962) 46 ITR 649 (SC) 4

Commissioner of Income Tax-II vs. M/s.Kalyani Wines

In the result, I find this appeal bereft of merit and accordingly,

Bench: Hon’Ble Mr. Justice Robin Phukan

37 of 60 22. The learned District Judge, in the impugned judgment, taking note of the Clause 6.6.3.0., 6.6.3.1., 6.7.1.0., and 6.8.2.0. of the GCC and the letter dated 03.07.1999, No. RB/GR/DCU-CDU/98-99/15, and the letter dated 19.08.1999, No. RB/GR/DCU/CDU/98-99/21, held that till preparation of Final Bill, there was „no notified claim‟ on the part of the Contractor for escalation

The Commissioner of Income Tax-I vs. M/s Andhra Bank

In the result, the appeal is dismissed

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

37,586/- was declared under Section 115JB of the Act. The return filed by the assessee was taken up for scrutiny and notices under Section 143(2) as well as Section 142(1) of the Act were issued to the assessee on 18.01.2010, 02.03.2010, 08.06.2010 and 02.11.2010. The details as sought by the Assessing Officer were furnished by the assessee

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

The appeals are dismissed

Bench: J. UMA DEVI,V RAMASUBRAMANIAN

disallowed in terms contemplated by Explanation 1 forming part of Section 37. 21. Appearing for the respondent assessee, Mr. Vohra, learned senior counsel submitted that it would be wholly incorrect to view the Bar Council of India Rules as amounting to a prohibition imposed by law and thus fall within the ken of Explanation 1. Mr. Vohra submitted that

Sri Rajesh Rawtani vs. The Income Tax Officer

The appeals are disposed off in the above

Bench: P.SAM KOSHY,SUDDALA CHALAPATHI RAO

37(1) (arising in ITA-1578/2010 and 278/2010)? (4) Whether the Tribunal fell into error in holding that loss of one project eligible for deduction under Section-80 HHB could not be set of against the profits of other projects eligible under the same provision (arising in ITA 1578/2010 and 278/2010)? 3. Question No.1 – Whether the provisions made claiming

Commissioner of IncomeTax-2, vs. Mr. Mustafa Alam Khan,

Appeal is allowed

Bench: SANJAY KUMAR,GUDISEVA SHYAM PRASAD

disallowed by the Assessing Officer4, vide assessment orders dated 24.12.2008 and 22.12.2009 respectively. Being aggrieved, the assessee preferred appeals before the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), Bangalore5, which were dismissed and the appeals filed by the assessee before the Tribunal were also dismissed. Being aggrieved the present appeal is filed. 3 Hereinafter referred to as the ‘said agreement’ 4 Hereinafter

COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-TDA vs. M/S.IDEA CELLULAR LTD

Bench: SUJOY PAUL,NAMAVARAPU RAJESHWAR RAO

37,12,090/- vide order dated 21.2.2014 passed u/s 143(3) of the Act.” 4. The enhanced disallowance was deleted by the Commission of Income Tax (Appeals) observing that the assessee had made disallowance Rs.1,04,90,253/- under 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

Commissioner of Income Tax-II vs. Energy Solutions International India Pvt Ltd.,

Bench: J. UMA DEVI,V RAMASUBRAMANIAN

37, which has the following text: “Any expenditure (not being expenditure of the nature described in section 30 to 36 and not being in the nature of capital expenditure or personal expenses of the assessee) laid out or expended wholly and exclusively for the purpose of the business or profession shall be allowed in computing the income chargeable under

COMMR.OF INCOME TAX VISAKHAPATNAM vs. SOUTH GLORY INTERNATIONAL P.LTD VISAKHAP

Appeal is disposed of

Section 37 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 in the year in which it is incurred?” TA NO. 18 OF 1999 2 Learned counsel for the appellant contended that for the same assessee, the Department has accepted the claim of the appellant for the years 1987-88, 1988-89 & 1989-90, but only for the years

COMM OF WEALTHTAX HYD vs. M/S. N.K.LEASINGANDCONST CO P.LTD HYD

Appeal is disposed of

Section 37 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 in the year in which it is incurred?” Learned counsel for the appellant contended that for the same assessee, the Department has accepted the claim of the appellant for the years 1987-88, 1988-89 & 1989-90, but only for the years 1990-91 and 1991-92, the same was disallowed. Subsequently

The Commissioner of Income- Tax - V, vs. M/s. Krishnaveni Constructions,

Bench: RAMESH RANGANATHAN,M.SATYANARAYANA MURTHY

Section 37[1] of the Act, merely on surmises and conjectures, the Tribunal proceeded to allow the claim of the assessee holding that the contention of the Revenue that the said amounts were claimed as a double deduction, further observing that the assessee is not claiming any weighted deduction thereupon. Drawing the attention of the Court to the submissions

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

Bench: : The Hon’Ble Justice Surya Prakash Kesarwani & The Hon’Ble Justice Rajarshi Bharadwaj Date : 28Th February 2024. Appearance: Mr. J. P. Khaitan, Senior Advocate Mr. Somak Basu, Advocate … For The Appellant. Mr. Vipul Kundalia, Advocate Mr. Anurag Roy, Advocate Ms. Oindrila Ghosal, Advocate … For The Respondent. 1. Heard Sri J. P. Khaitan, Learned Senior Advocate Assisted By Sri Somak Basu, Learned Counsel For The Appellant Assessee & Vipul Kundalia, Learned Senior Standing Counsel For The Respondent. 2. This Appeal Was Admitted By This Court By Order Dated 19.08.2011 On Four Substantial Questions Of Law. Learned Counsel For The Appellant Has Stated That The Appellant Does Not Want To Press The Substantial

4 crores. The purchases of bond of American Express Bank Ltd. were made between 12.7.1989 and 6.11.1989 on eight dates. The purchases of bonds of Can Bank Financial Services Limited were made between 29.3.1989 and 28.4.1989 on four dates. The bonds of M/s. Peerless General Finance and Investment Co. Limited were purchased between 31.5.1989 and 29.3.1990 on five dates. Thus

The Commissioner of Income Tax vs. Independent Assemblies of God

Bench: RAMESH RANGANATHAN,M.SATYANARAYANA MURTHY

disallowed. 2. The matter relates to Assessment Year 1997-98. The appellant is engaged in the business of automobile parts. With intent to expand its business outside the country, it incurred travelling and staff expenses outside the country during 1995-96 and 1996-97. The appellant attempted to set up a unit in China. The project could not be materialized

The Commissioner of Income Tax-III vs. Smt.Anitha Sanghi

Bench: RAMESH RANGANATHAN,M.SATYANARAYANA MURTHY

4. The assessee filed a return of income on 28.11.2000 declaring gross total income of Rs.2,23,249/-. The assessee declared Rs.2,06,92,53,033/- as book profit under Section 115JA of the Act. The return was processed under Section 143(1) of the Act resulting in refund of Rs.10,62,37,618/-. Thereafter a notice was issued under

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

4. The AO was of the opinion, in all these assessment years, (AY 2007-08, 2008-09, and 2009-10) that borrowed funds had been used for booking of a property which was to be used as a show room of the company in future years and it could not establish nexus between the money borrowed and sum advanced

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 :-

4) (1981) 128 ITR 402 (Del) Addl. CIT Vs. M/s. Rajindra Flour & Allied Industries Private Limited and several other decisions. 3.5 The appellant has also given several decisions to support its claim that liability of prior period is allowable in the year of 9 crystallization. So, in view of all these facts and case laws and the facts that

The Commissioner of Income Tax -II vs. M/S Heritage Foods India Limited,

37(1) of the I.T.Act by ignoring the fact that such expenditure is covered u/s 35D of the I.T.Act ? 4. The first substantial question of law in both the above mentioned appeals has already been concluded by this Court on 06.08.2008 against the revenue in view of the judgment of Hon’ble Supreme Court in Deputy Commissioner of Income