The Commissioner of Incoe Tax III, vs. Raj Breeders and Hatcheries (PVT) Liited,

Bench: RAMESH RANGANATHAN,M.SATYANARAYANA MURTHY

6. The assessee filed its Income Tax Return (ITR) for the assessment year 2002-03, declaring income of Rs. 1,20,64,680/-. The ITR was filed on 31.10.2002. Assessee claimed an expenses of Rs. 88,01,203/- in the profit and loss account, which included a sum of Rs. 45,00,000/- paid by the assessee to Life Insurance

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

Bench: RAMESH RANGANATHAN,M.SATYANARAYANA MURTHY

6. The assessee filed its Income Tax Return (ITR) for the assessment year 2002-03, declaring income of Rs. 1,20,64,680/-. The ITR was filed on 31.10.2002. Assessee claimed an expenses of Rs. 88,01,203/- in the profit and loss account, which included a sum of Rs. 45,00,000/- paid by the assessee to Life Insurance

Commissioner of Income Tax-I vs. Agricultural Market Committee

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

6. The assessee filed its Income Tax Return (ITR) for the assessment year 2002-03, declaring income of Rs. 1,20,64,680/-. The ITR was filed on 31.10.2002. Assessee claimed an expenses of Rs. 88,01,203/- in the profit and loss account, which included a sum of Rs. 45,00,000/- paid by the assessee to Life Insurance

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

The Commissioner of Income Tax [Central] vs. Akula Nageswara Rao

The appeals stand dismissed

Bench: SANJAY KUMAR,GUDISEVA SHYAM PRASAD

43,78,146/- . Similar deduction was also disallowed in respect of Barotiwala Unit during the assessment year 2012-13. Accordingly, show cause notice under Section 263 of the Act was issued on 28.02.2016 by the CIT. After considering the reply filed by the assessee, order under Section 263 of the Act was passed by the CIT on 16.03.2016. Aggrieved

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 5% thereof was estimated as expenditure incurred for earning such income. 3. The assessee, thereupon, filed an appeal. The Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) by an order dated 31.05.2011 partly allowed the appeal. Being aggrieved, the revenue as well

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

Commissioner of Income Tax -II vs. M/S Sri Ramanjaneya Poultry Farm Pvt., Ltd.,

Bench: CHALLA KODANDA RAM,G.CHANDRAIAH

43,96,023.00 Assessed at Rs.43,69,023.00. Issue necessary forms. Sd/- (Sanjay Gosain) Income Tax Officer, Ward 23(2), N. Delhi Copy to : The Assessee. O/c Sd/- (Sanjay Gosain) Income Tax Officer, Ward 23(2), N. Delhi.” CS(OS) No.713/2006 Page 12 of 14 8. It is not disputed before me on behalf of the plaintiff that when this

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

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

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

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

6. To maintain for the members of the company liaison with organization/s interested in Pollution Control and Environment Management and such activities in furtherance of the objects of the Company such as Chamber of Commerce, Government departments, Management Associations Trade Associations etc. in the State Country and abroad. 7. To collaborate and co-operate with other professional institutions and with

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

6. The CIT (A) examined whether DD Properties (P) ltd. had credit worthiness and financial strength to examine its capacity and capability to carry the venture of constructing the proposed shopping complex in which the assessee had booked 40,000 sq. feet of area for its business. Despite opportunities, the assessee did not disclose evidence about the financial capacity, capability

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

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

6) of the Act. 12. In the case of Associate Builders vs. DDA, reported in (2015) 3 SCC 49, while dealing with the issue of patent illegality has held that it has comprises of three requirements:- "42. In the 1996 Act, this principle is substituted by the "patent illegality" principle which, in turn, contains three subheads: 42.1. (a) A contravention

The Commissioner of Income Tax - IV vs. M/s. Mekins Agro Product (P) Ltd.

disallowance is made only for this year. Since business income has to be as stated in section 29 by granting all deductions provided under sections 30 to 43D which includes depreciation under section 32, the assessee is entitled is the case pressed before us by the senior counsel appearing for the assessee. We have no doubt in our mind that

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