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

Bench: RAMESH RANGANATHAN,M.SATYANARAYANA MURTHY

Section 43-B(f) of the Act and hence were rightly disallowed by the revenue. “39. Reverting to the true

Commissioner of Income Tax-I vs. Agricultural Market Committee

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

Section 43-B(f) of the Act and hence were rightly disallowed by the revenue. “39. Reverting to the true

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

Appeal is allowed

Bench: SANJAY KUMAR,GUDISEVA SHYAM PRASAD

disallowed and in its place, depreciation of Rs.6,30,864/- is allowed and difference amount of Rs.18,92,500/- is added back to the income declared.” (emphasis supplied) 9 12. It is forthcoming that it has been held that the deduction is required to be made under Section 32(1) of the IT Act. 13. Section

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

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

disallowed and could be subjected to tax as income in the hands of the assessee. iii) Section 80M read with Section 80AA of the Act, 1961 provides for deduction @ 60% on the income by way of dividend from a domestic company. Therefore, the entire amount received as dividend was the income from dividend and, as such, deduction under Section

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

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

disallowed the entire claim of deduction under Section 8O-lA of the Act, 19 61. 5. On the other hand, learned counset for respondent while supporting the orders passed by the CIT rA) and the ITAT contending; that the power which was transfer red from power unit to ferro is to be charged with recovery ra-e of power

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

Bench: P.SAM KOSHY,NARSING RAO NANDIKONDA

disallowed the entire claim of ded the Act, 1961. 5. On the other hand, le while supporting the orders Passe contending that the Power which unit to ferro is to be charged wi not at which the Power Purch assessee. He further argued companies are supplying Power Rs.2.21 to 3.15 per unit. He agreed willAhe assessee's con ntion that

ELICO LIMITED, HYDERABAD. vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, HYDERABAD.

The appeals are allowed

Bench: The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-Ii, Hyderabad & The Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Hyderabad Bench 'A', Hyderabad, Having Been Dismissed, The Assessee Filed The Present Appeals. 2. Sri S.Dwarakanath, Learned Counsel For The Appellant, Has Placed Before Us The Judgment In Commissioner Of Income Tax Vs. Alom Extrusions Limited1 & Submitted That In The Said Judgment, The Supreme Court Held That Deletion Of Second Proviso To Section 43-B Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (For Short, 'The Act'), Based On Which Disallowance Was Made Being Curative, Has Retrospective Operation From 01-04-1988, The Date On Which The Said Provision Was Introduced. He Has Accordingly Submitted That In View Of The Said Judgment, The Appeals Deserve To Be Allowed. Sri B.Narasimha Sarma, Learned Senior Standing Counsel For Income Tax Department, Has Fairly Conceded The Submission Of Leaned Counsel For The Appellant.

Section 43-B of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (for short, 'the Act'), based on which disallowance was made being

ELICO LIMITED, HYDERABAD. vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, HYDERABAD.

The appeals are allowed

Bench: The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-Ii, Hyderabad & The Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Hyderabad Bench 'A', Hyderabad, Having Been Dismissed, The Assessee Filed The Present Appeals. 2. Sri S.Dwarakanath, Learned Counsel For The Appellant, Has Placed Before Us The Judgment In Commissioner Of Income Tax Vs. Alom Extrusions Limited1 & Submitted That In The Said Judgment, The Supreme Court Held That Deletion Of Second Proviso To Section 43-B Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (For Short, 'The Act'), Based On Which Disallowance Was Made Being Curative, Has Retrospective Operation From 01-04-1988, The Date On Which The Said Provision Was Introduced. He Has Accordingly Submitted That In View Of The Said Judgment, The Appeals Deserve To Be Allowed. Sri B.Narasimha Sarma, Learned Senior Standing Counsel For Income Tax Department, Has Fairly Conceded The Submission Of Leaned Counsel For The Appellant.

Section 43-B of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (for short, 'the Act'), based on which disallowance was made being

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

43(1) ? (ii) Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Hon’ble Income Tax Appellate Tribunal was justified in allowing expenditure relating to the public issue of debentures u/s 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

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

disallowance can be made.” 9. It is argued by the revenue that ITAT has failed to appreciate that for the claim of interest, it is necessary that, firstly, the money ITA Nos.512/2013, 516/2013, 517/2013, 518/2013, 519/2013 & 526/2013 Page 10 must have been borrowed by the assessee, secondly, it must have been borrowed for the purpose of business and thirdly

THE PRL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX [CENTRAL] HYDERABAD vs. M/S SREE NAGENDRA CONSTRUCTIONS, KHAMMAM

In the result, appeal stands dismissed

Bench: This

disallowance of exchange fluctuation loss of Rs.3,63,47,099/- made by the assessing authority even when the CBDT Instruction No.3/2010 dated 23.03.2010 refers to market losses are notional and contingent and actual losses are allowable as non-speculative only if the transaction qualifies as eligible derivative transaction under clause [d] of proviso to section 43

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

43 , 2ND FLOOR DICKENSON ROAD BANGALORE - 560 058. ... RESPONDENT (BY SRI. A. SHANKAR SR. ADV. FOR SRI. M. LAVA, ADV.) - - - THIS I.T.A. IS FILED UNDER SEC. 260-A OF INCOME TAX ACT 1961, ARISING OUT OF ORDER DATED 31.05.2010 PASSED IN ITA NO.965/BANG/2009, FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2005- 06, PRAYING THAT THIS HON'BLE COURT MAY BE PLEASED

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

disallowed. The Assessing Officer for the Assessment Year 2012-13 also took a stand similar Digitally Signed By:VAISHALI CHAUHAN Signing Date:10.01.2024 15:43:36 Signature Not Verified ITA 1021/2019 & 157/2023 Page 6 of 9 pages to the one pertaining to the Assessment Year 2011-12 as regards addition under Section

The Commissioner of Income tax III, vs. Biraj Kavar Galada

The appeals are disposed of

Bench: RAMESH RANGANATHAN,M.SATYANARAYANA MURTHY

43,22,862/- in accordance with RBI guidelines and accounting employed which had been accepted earlier cannot be treated as the income of the assessee? (ii) Whether the Tribunal was correct in failing to appreciate Section 43D of the Act and Section36(1)(vii) read with Section 36(2)(i) of the Act which contemplated treating the said amount

COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, vs. M/S G.R.K.PRASAD AND OTHERS

In the result, for the above reasons, we set aside the orders

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

43) tax means the income tax chargeable under the provisions of the Act for the relevant assessment year in determining the income tax liability of an assessee who is liable to pay tax under the Act. In computing the income, Sections 5 and 7 and the provisions in Chapter IV of the Act provide the modalities. While doing so, deductions

Commissioner of Income Tax, vs. M/s Y.Ramakrishna and Others

In the result, for the above reasons, we set aside the orders

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

43) tax means the income tax chargeable under the provisions of the Act for the relevant assessment year in determining the income tax liability of an assessee who is liable to pay tax under the Act. In computing the income, Sections 5 and 7 and the provisions in Chapter IV of the Act provide the modalities. While doing so, deductions