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

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, vs. Sri Padala Ramakrishna Reddy,

The appeals stand dismissed

Bench: RAMESH RANGANATHAN,M.SATYANARAYANA MURTHY

42 of 1999), and any rules made thereunder or any other corresponding law for the time being in force; (b) “eligible articles or things” means all hand-made articles or things, which are of artistic value and which requires the use of wood as the main raw material; (c) “export turnover” means the consideration in respect of export

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

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

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

B) of the Indian Evidence Act was not annexed to the call detail records, and no reliance could have been placed upon the call detail records. She relied upon the judgments of Musheer Khan @ Badshah Khan & Anr vs State Of M.P, 2010 (2) SCC 748, D. Gopalakrishnan vs Sadanand Naik & Ors, 2005(1) SCC 85 and Malkhan Singh

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

Bench: SUJOY PAUL,NAMAVARAPU RAJESHWAR RAO

B. Average Value of Investment C. Average of total assets Disallowan ce = A * B/C 50,642,471 119758172 1,1975811 72+ 1564803 5,05,76,386 50,642,471 1197581172 1199145975 50,642,471 5,05,76,386 iii Aggregate of Opening and Closing value of Investment (Average Value of Investment) >2% of above as per Rule

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 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

b) The case of Sri.Shajideen that he obtained the Stamp Papers only in June 2008 is unbelievable from his own pleadings and deposition. (c) Exhibit B27 Sale Deed of the property belonging to Smt.Indira Basheer has been registered on the strength of the Power of Attorney of Sri.Basheer, as is clear from the declarations of the Sub Registrar

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

b) storage costs, unless those costs are necessary in the production process prior to a further production stage; (c) administrative overheads that do not contribute to bringing ITA 210/2003 & connected matters Page 16 of 36 the inventories to their present location and condition; and (d) selling and distribution costs.” 28. There is, therefore, merit in the contention of the Assessee

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

Appeals of the Revenue are dismissed

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

b) storage costs, unless those costs are necessary in the production process prior to a further production stage; (c) administrative overheads that do not contribute to bringing ITA 210/2003 & connected matters Page 16 of 36 the inventories to their present location and condition; and (d) selling and distribution costs.” 28. There is, therefore, merit in the contention of the Assessee

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

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

THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX III, HYDERABAD vs. M/S. SRINIVASA HATCHERIES PVT. LTD

Bench: C.V. BHASKAR REDDY,UJJAL BHUYAN

B', Hyderabad (Tribunal) 1n I.T.A.No.4B9lHyd/2000 for the assessment year 1998-99. 3. In the appeal, the following questions have been proposed as substantial questions ol law: " 1 . On the facts and in the circumstances of the case when the Assessing Oflicer disallowed the deduction clairned by tJ:e assessee u/s. 80 IA of I.T. Act vide I.T.T.A. No.71

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

Bench: RAMESH RANGANATHAN,M.SATYANARAYANA MURTHY

b) Cheque bearing No.786343 dated 15.3.2004 for a sum of Rs.20,00,000/-. (c) Cheque bearing No.786344 dated 5.4.2004 for a sum of Rs.5,00,000/-. The plaintiff has to secure necessary permission for conversion of suit land as stipulated in Ex.P4 and only thereafter, has to execute/register the sale deed, is again stipulated in this document also

The Commissioner of Inccome Tax-III vs. Speectra Shares AND Scrips Pvt Ltd

Bench: RAMESH RANGANATHAN,M.SATYANARAYANA MURTHY

disallowed the claim of the assessee to treat the rental income as income from the business. The said view of the Assessing Officer has been confirmed by the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) in Annexure-B order dated 14.03.2006, and by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (for short 'the Tribunal'), vide order dated 24.08.2007. 3.1 The assessee placed strong reliance