Commissioner of Income Tax, vs. Dr. T.Ravi Kumar,

Bench: : The Hon’Ble Justice Surya Prakash Kesarwani & The Hon’Ble Justice Rajarshi Bharadwaj Date : 10Th April, 2024. Appearance: Mr. J. P. Khaitan, Senior Advocate Mr. Sanjay Bhowmick, Advocate Ms. Swapna Das, Advocate … For The Appellant. Ms. Smita Das De, Advocate … For The Respondent. 1. Heard Sri J. P. Khaitan, Learned Senior Advocate Assisted By Sri Sanjay Bhowmick, Learned Counsel For The Appellant/Assessee & Ms. Smita Das De, Learned Senior Standing Counsel For The Respondent. 2. The Assessment Years Involved In The Present Appeal Are Assessment Year 1999-2000 & Assessment Year 2000-01. By Order Dated 16.08.2012, This Appeal Was Admitted On The Following Substantial Questions Of Law :-

43B of the Act, 1961 which was claimed by the assessee. Pursuant to the returns filed by the assessee, no assessment order was passed by the assessing officer. Therefore, the order passed by the assessing officer under Section 143(3) r.w.s. 147 of the Act, 1961 is an assessment order. The ratio of decision in the case of Sun Engineering

AD-AGE OUTDOOR ADVERTISING P LTD., HYDERABAD. vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONEER OF INCOME TAX, HYDERABAD.

Bench: T.VINOD KUMAR,M.S.RAMACHANDRA RAO

disallowing the deduction of Rs. 45,00,000/-, the CIT(A)recorded the following reasons:- a) As; there was no specific provision under Section 36 of the Act relating to contribution to leave encashment fund, the amount of Rs. 45,00,000/- paid into the said fund by the assessee had no statutory recognition. b) There was no ascertained liability

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

Bench: RAMESH RANGANATHAN,M.SATYANARAYANA MURTHY

disallowing the deduction of Rs. 45,00,000/-, the CIT(A)recorded the following reasons:- a) As; there was no specific provision under Section 36 of the Act relating to contribution to leave encashment fund, the amount of Rs. 45,00,000/- paid into the said fund by the assessee had no statutory recognition. b) There was no ascertained liability

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

Bench: RAMESH RANGANATHAN,M.SATYANARAYANA MURTHY

disallowing the deduction of Rs. 45,00,000/-, the CIT(A)recorded the following reasons:- a) As; there was no specific provision under Section 36 of the Act relating to contribution to leave encashment fund, the amount of Rs. 45,00,000/- paid into the said fund by the assessee had no statutory recognition. b) There was no ascertained liability

Commissioner of Income Tax-I vs. Agricultural Market Committee

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

disallowing the deduction of Rs. 45,00,000/-, the CIT(A)recorded the following reasons:- a) As; there was no specific provision under Section 36 of the Act relating to contribution to leave encashment fund, the amount of Rs. 45,00,000/- paid into the said fund by the assessee had no statutory recognition. b) There was no ascertained liability

Commissioner of Income tAx, vs. Sri Padala Ramakrishna Reddy,

The appeals stand dismissed

Bench: RAMESH RANGANATHAN,M.SATYANARAYANA MURTHY

disallowed under Section 43B or under Section 36(1)(va) of the IT Act.” 10. However, SLP is pending against

Commissioner of Income Tax vs. Sri. B. Venkatesam,

The appeal stands disposed of with no order as to

43B of the I.T. Act. ITA No.41/2000 Page 4 of 24 3. Whether the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal is correct in law and on facts in upholding the disallowance of a sum of `9,37,669.81 being the loss incurred on account of devaluation of rupee against US Dollars, holding the same to be a fictitious and notional loss

COMMISSIONER OF INCOMETA VIZ vs. M/S RAJAM EXTRACTIONS PVT

The appeal is partly allowed

Bench: GODA RAGHURAM,M.S.RAMACHANDRA RAO

Section 43B of the I.T.Act. (iii) Whether the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal is correct in law and on facts in upholding the disallowance

COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-II vs. GLAND PHARMA LTD.,

In the result, the appeal (ITAT/96/2017) fails and stands

Bench: P.SAM KOSHY,NARSING RAO NANDIKONDA

disallowances of Rs.31.76 lacs made by the Assessing Officer under Section 43B of Income Tax Act, 1961 on account of provision

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

Bench: RAMESH RANGANATHAN,M.SATYANARAYANA MURTHY

disallowances made under Sections 32, 40(a) (ia), 40A(3), 43B, etc. of the Act and other specific disallowances, related

Commissioner of Income Tax-V, vs. Sri S.Venkat Reddy, (PAN ALAPS4009A)

In the result, the appeal fails and is hereby

disallowance under Section 14A of the Act. The assessee thereupon filed an appeal before the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), who by an order dated 03.07.2006 partly allowed the appeal preferred by the assessee. The assessee as well as the revenue approached the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal by filing appeals. The Tribunal, 5 by an order dated 17.05.2013 partly allowed

The Commissioner of income Tax-II vs. M/s.Ideal Industrial Explosives Ltd

Bench: RAMESH RANGANATHAN,M.SATYANARAYANA MURTHY

43B has to be read retrospectively to give full effect thereto. Hence, the question stands answered in favour of the assessee and against the Revenue upholding the order of the Tribunal, which affirmed the deduction as granted by the first appellate authority. 4. The second question in ITA No.3/2010 is also covered in favour of the assessee as found

Commissioner of Income Tax-1 vs. M/s. A.S. Raja Sons Enterprises (P) Ltd.,

Bench: 31.3.2000 I.E. The End Of The Relevant Accounting Year Even Though The Assessee Has Already Incurred Liability Of Excise Duty Of A Much Higher Value?

disallowance of Rs.3,57,51,194/- in respect of Sales Tax Recoverable account, under Section 43B of the Income Tax Act? iv. Has not the ITAT

Commissioner of Income Tax-1 vs. The Associated Taners

The appeal is dismissed

Bench: RAMESH RANGANATHAN,M.SATYANARAYANA MURTHY

Section 43B of the Income Tax Act, 1961? (3) Whether the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal was correct in law in deleting the disallowance

The Commissioner of Income Tax -1 vs. R.S. Sudheesh

43B of the Income Tax Act, the Tribunal is right in allowing the deduction of the bonus in the Asst. Year 2003-04 claimable and paid in the Assessment Year 2002 03? I.T.A. No.172/2013 -3- 2. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and for the reasons stated in the grounds, the Tribunal is right

COMR. OF IT HYD vs. M/S NEERAJ PETRO CHEMICALS LTD HYD

The appeal is partly allowed

disallowance of interest of Rs.9,88,740/- being alleged accruing liability of interest in pursuance to the order of this Hon’ble Court in respect of the excess fund received by the assessee company?” 7. We have heard learned counsel for both the sides. Insofar as question no.1 raised in T.A. No.382/2000, which is similar to the question

The Commissioner of Income tax III vs. M/s. Sree Sree Wines

Accordingly, the appeal (ITAT/75/2010) stands dismissed

Bench: RAMESH RANGANATHAN,M.SATYANARAYANA MURTHY

disallowing 50% depreciation on “Purely Temporary Erections” used for less than 180 days? iv) Whether, the Learned Income Tax Appellate Tribunal “A” Bench, Kolkata erred in Law in not treating the 100% depreciation as revenue expense and in wrongly applying the provisions of Section 32(1) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 on “Purely Temporary Erections” used for less than