Principal Commissioner of Income Tax-1 vs. M/s Sri Sri Gruha Nirman India Pvt. Ltd.

Appeals are dismissed

Bench: P.SAM KOSHY,NARSING RAO NANDIKONDA

disallowance under Section 40(a)(ia) of the Act could not be sustained. 6. We may note that this view

M/s. CCL Products (India)Ltd. vs. The Commissioner of Income Tax I

In the result, the appeal is disposed of

Bench: The Authorities & There Was No Need To Remand The Matter Under The Facts & Circumstances Of The Case?

Section 40(a)(ia) of the Act firstly there should be a finding that the provisions Chpater XVII B is attracted for the purpose of disallowance

The Prl Commissioner of Income Tax (Exemptions) vs. Institute of Development and Research in Banking Technology

Bench: ABHINAND KUMAR SHAVILI,V RAMASUBRAMANIAN

disallowed in the earlier years for non-deduction of tax at source under Section 40(a) of the Act and which

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

40,64,898/- was declared under the provisions of the Act and book profit of Rs.144,62,37,586/- 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

The Commisioner of Income TAx-1 vs. Divya Shakti Granites Ltd.,

Bench: RAMESH RANGANATHAN,M.SATYANARAYANA MURTHY

section 55 of the Transfer of Property Act, 1882 mounted on the shoulders of vendor to vouch a clear and marketable title, unless contrary is contracted. It has been held by the Privy Council in MOTILAL vs. NANHELAL5 that there is an implied covenant by the vendor to do all things necessary to effect a transfer; so when a vendor

The Principal Commissioner of Income Tax vs. M/s.Midwest Granites Private Limited

Appeal stands dismissed accordingly

Bench: RAMESH RANGANATHAN,KONGARA VIJAYA LAKSHMI

disallowance made under Section 40(a)(ia) of the Act by following its earlier order passed in assessee’s own case

Commissioner of Income Tax, vs. M/s Mohan Milk Line Private Limited,

Bench: RAMESH RANGANATHAN,M.SATYANARAYANA MURTHY

Section 40(a) (ia) of the Income Tax Act, 1961. This Court, vide order dated 08.10.2014, framed the following substantial questions of law: (i) Whether Sec. 40 (a) (ia) of the Income Tax Act can be invoked to disallow

PRL COMMISSOER OF INCOME TAX vs. SRISURAM VENKATESWARA REDDY

In the result, appeal filed by the revenue fails and is

Bench: RAMESH RANGANATHAN,KONGARA VIJAYA LAKSHMI

disallowance made under Section 40(a) (ia) of the Act on ATM charges of other Banks even though Section 194H

The Commissioner of Income Tax-III vs. M/s.Vishwas Investments Pvt.Ltd,

Bench: GODA RAGHURAM,M.S.RAMACHANDRA RAO

Section 40(a) (ia) of the Income Tax Act, 1961, disallowance of the expenditure payment of which, though required deduction

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

40. We note from the facts in the State Bank of Patiala case (supra) that the AO while passing the assessment order, had already restricted the disallowance to the amount which was claimed as exempt income by applying the formula contained in r. 8D of the Rules and holding that s. 14A of the Act would be applicable. In spite

The Commissioner of Income Tax IV vs. M/s. Nav Bharat Enterprises Limited

disallowed the expenditure under section 40(a)(i) of IT Act as the assessee had failed to comply with the provisions

N R KRISHNA MURTHY vs. COMISSIONER INCOME TAX

The Appeal is dismissed

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

disallowance under Section 40(a)(ia), the Assessing Officer did not form a decision on the basis of any fresh

The Commissioner of Income Tax I vs. M/s. Bhagiradha Chemicals AND Industries Ltd.,

The appeal is disposed of

disallow the commission payment made to the said directors and the fresh assessment order u/s143(3) of I.T. Act may be passed accordingly.” (emphasis supplied) 7. On the second issue, the Commissioner of Income Tax referred to the total figure of expenses claimed against the manufacturing unit and the expenses booked against trading activities. In paragraph 5 the Commissioner accepted

The Commissioner of Income Tax-IV, Hyderabad. vs. Prithvi Information Solutions P Ltd.,

disallowance of expenditure of Rs.1344,63,25,000/- under Section 40(a)(ia) of the Act. According to the CIT, the aforementioned

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)(c) are being initiated separately.” 7. This is the entire discussion on the said addition, in the assessment order. The amounts in question are substantial. The Assessing Officer must discuss

Commissioner of Income TaX-I vs. Agriculturl Market Committee

The appeal stands dismissed and the substantial questions of law

Bench: : The Hon’Ble Justice T.S. Sivagnanam & The Hon’Ble Justice Hiranmay Bhattacharyya Date : 2Nd March, 2023 Appearance : Mr. Soumen Bhattacharjee, Adv. …For Appellant The Court : - This Appeal Filed By The Revenue Under Section 260A Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (The Act) Is Directed Against The Order Dated 25.6.2010 Passed By The Learned Income Tax Appellate Tribunal “C” Bench, Kolkata In I.T.A. No. 152/Kol/2009 For The Assessment Year 2004-2005 & I.T.A. No.153/Kol/2009 For The Assessment Year 2005-2006. As Rightly Pointed Out By Mr. Soumen Bhattacharjee, Learned Advocate Representing The Revenue/Appellant That The Tax Effect Involved In The Instant Appeal Is Rs.44,94,103/- Which Is Far Below The Threshold Limit As Would Be Evident From The Circular Issued By The C.B.D.T. This Appeal Was Admitted On May 03, 2011 & The Following Substantial Questions Of Law Have Been Framed By The Hon’Ble Division Bench:- (I) Whether The Learned Tribunal Below Committed Substantial Error Of Law In Confirming The Order Of Disallowance In Setting Side The Order Of Disallowance Or Labour Charges Of Security Guard By Totally Misconstruing The Provisions Contained In Section 40(A)(Ia) Read With Section 194C Of The Income Tax Act, 1961?

disallowance or labour charges of security guard by totally misconstruing the provisions contained in Section 40(a)(ia) read with

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

Section 36 (1) (iii) regarding advance of borrowed funds, to its sister concern?; (2) Did the ITAT fall into error in holding that the sum of `25,04,385/- brought to tax by the AO on the interest free deposit of ` 1,75,50,000/- was not sustainable?; (3) Is the ITAT’s order- that the assessee’s revised

Pr. Commissioner of Income Tax-2, vs. M/s Trinity Advanced Software Labs Private Limited,

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

Bench: RAMESH RANGANATHAN,M.SATYANARAYANA MURTHY

disallowance u/s.40(a)(i) of the Act? b) Whether the Tribunal was correct in allowing relief to the assessee holding that the reimbursement of salary costs and other expenditure was without any profit element and hence cannot be regarded as income chargeable in the hands of Abbey National Plc., UK under Article 13 of the India-UK Treaty, without properly