Commissioner of Income Tax -II vs. The Agrasen Coop. Urban Bank Ltd.,

In the result, for the above reasons, these appeals fail and

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

disallowed by the assessing officer on the ground that the assessee did not obtain prior approval in respect of investments against statutory reserves as required under Section 46 of the Andhra Pradesh Cooperative Societies Act, 1964 (the Societies Act) and Rule 37(2) of the Andhra Pradesh Cooperative Societies Rules, 1964 (the Societies Rules). The assessing officer came

The Commissioner of Income Tax-II vs. The Andhra Bank Employees Co.Operative Bank Limited

In the result, for the above reasons, these appeals fail and

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

disallowed by the assessing officer on the ground that the assessee did not obtain prior approval in respect of investments against statutory reserves as required under Section 46 of the Andhra Pradesh Cooperative Societies Act, 1964 (the Societies Act) and Rule 37(2) of the Andhra Pradesh Cooperative Societies Rules, 1964 (the Societies Rules). The assessing officer came

COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-II, HYDERABAD vs. M/s. The A.P.Vardhaman(Mahila)Cooperative Urban

In the result, for the above reasons, these appeals fail and

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

disallowed by the assessing officer on the ground that the assessee did not obtain prior approval in respect of investments against statutory reserves as required under Section 46 of the Andhra Pradesh Cooperative Societies Act, 1964 (the Societies Act) and Rule 37(2) of the Andhra Pradesh Cooperative Societies Rules, 1964 (the Societies Rules). The assessing officer came

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

42. To procure the company to be registered or recognized in any part of India in the field of environment management; 43. To purchase or take by way of lease, sub-lease, gift, exchange, hire or otherwise acquire movable or immovable property and in particular any land, building, workshop, factories, laboratories, machinery, equipment, furniture, scientific records, experimental data. library

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-II vs. Energy Solutions International India Pvt Ltd.,

Bench: J. UMA DEVI,V RAMASUBRAMANIAN

1) section 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

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

THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX vs. K.VENKATESWARLU

Accordingly they are dismissed

Bench: V.ESWARAIAH,K.G.SHANKAR

42 of 2001, I.T.T.A.Nos.27, 49, 101 of 2002 AND I.T.T.A.No.203 of 2003 COMMON JUDGMENT: Per Hon’ble Sri Justice V.Eswaraiah) Sri J.V.Prasad, the learned Standing Counsel for Income Tax submits that all these appeals are covered by the Judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Kvaverner John Brown Engg. (India) P.Ltd v. Asst. C.I.T (SC) against

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

disallowable on the ground of such payment having been made for „extraneous considerations.‟ 34. In Kanga and Palkhivala‟s Commentary on the Income Tax Law Volume 1, the distinction between the expressions “for the purpose of earning profits‟ and „for purpose of the business‟ was brought out as under: “11. Wholly and Exclusively for the Purposes of the Business

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

Appeals of the Revenue are dismissed

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

disallowable on the ground of such payment having been made for „extraneous considerations.‟ 34. In Kanga and Palkhivala‟s Commentary on the Income Tax Law Volume 1, the distinction between the expressions “for the purpose of earning profits‟ and „for purpose of the business‟ was brought out as under: “11. Wholly and Exclusively for the Purposes of the Business

PRL COMMR OF INCOME TAX, TIRUPATI, CHITTOOR DIST vs. V DWARAKANATH REDDY, CHITTOOR

The appeals are hereby dismissed

Bench: RAMESH RANGANATHAN,KONGARA VIJAYA LAKSHMI

42 and 99 of 2015 all titled as The Commissioner of Income Tax (Exemption), Chandigarh vs. M/s Improvement Trust, Chhoti Baradari, Patiala. All the appeals have common facts, for convenience sake, facts are being taken from I.T.A. No.161 of 2016. 2. The Revenue has filed the appeal under Section 260A of Income Tax Act, 1961 (for short 'the Act') against

Andhra Pradesh Fibres Limited, vs. Addl. Commissioner of Income Tax,

disallowances are made, the mere absence of the discussion of the provisions of Section 80IB(13) read with Section 80IA (9) would not mean that the AO had not applied his mind to the said provisions. As pointed out in Kelvinator of India's case (supra) [CIT Vs. Kelvinator of India Ltd. (2002) 256 ITR 1 (Del) (FB)] , when

The Commissioner of Income Tax (Central) vs. K. V. Srinivasa Rao

42. The identity of the accused is also established by the statement of Chajju Ram (PW4). He stated that he had gone to a temple in an industrial area, Mehatpur, on 14.02.2013 at 12:00 noon. He saw a motorcycle near the wall of the temple. He noticed three boys who were present at odd hours because normally, people remain

The Pr.Commissioner of Income Tax (Central) vs. M/s Vaishnavi Educational Society

In the result, this Cross Objection is allowed and the suit is

Bench: RAMESH RANGANATHAN,M.SATYANARAYANA MURTHY

42 from this, Sri.Shajideen has not been able to lead any other evidence in support of Exhibit B2 letter and, consequently, it becomes, from all angles, incapable of being seen as a genuine document. 48. The necessary corollary is that the version of the Owners regarding Exhibit A10 cheque becomes wholly believable, since the explanation of Sri.Shajideen not merely fails

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

1], the view taken above has been reiterated in the following words: ‚25. Moreover, umpteen numbers of judgments of this Court have categorically held that the courts should not interfere with an Page 30 of 60 award merely because an alternative view on facts and interpretation of contract exists. The courts need to be cautious and should defer

The Commissioner of Income tax - III, vs. M/s. Namala Estates,

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

Bench: RAMESH RANGANATHAN,M.SATYANARAYANA MURTHY

1. THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX LTU, JSS TOWERS BSK III STAGE, BANGALORE. 2. THE ADDITIONAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX LTU, JSS TOWERS BSK III STAGE, BANGALORE. ... APPELLANTS (BY SRI. K.V. ARAVIND, ADV.,) AND: M/S. SHOBHA DEVELOPERS LTD., #43 , 2ND FLOOR DICKENSON ROAD BANGALORE - 560 058. ... RESPONDENT (BY SRI. A. SHANKAR SR. ADV. FOR SRI. M. LAVA, ADV.) - - - THIS I.T.A

The Commissioner of Income Tax IV vs. Margadarshi Chit Fund Pvt. Ltd.,

The appeal is dismissed

disallowing expenditure, on surmises and conjenctures without finding any discrepancy in Audited books of account?” While allowed the appeals, it has been observed that all the three authorities had acted on surmises and guess work while sustaining the additions of different amounts. Further the authorities were required to have some material to come to the conclusion that the addition

Commissioner of Income Tax-III., vs. Smt. Chirala Nivedita Reddy

disallowed certain amounts including the exemption claimed under Section 10(29) of the Act, as well as certain categories of income and purchase. (While the matter stood thus, on 17.3.2006, the A.O. issued a reassessment notice, this time alleging that exemption claimed under Section 10(29) was inadmissible. He sought to add back