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

Section 36 (1) (iii) regarding advance of borrowed funds, to its sister concern?; (2) Did the ITAT fall into error in holding that the sum of `25,04,385/- brought to tax by the AO on the interest free deposit of ` 1,75,50,000/- was not sustainable?; (3) Is the ITAT’s order- that the assessee’s revised

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

disallowance of a portion of deduction claimed under Section 80IB of the Act. Accordingly, the appeal preferred by the assessee was partly allowed. In the aforesaid factual background, this appeal has been filed by the revenue. 4. Learned counsel for the revenue while inviting our attention to orders passed by the Assessing Officer, Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals

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 :-

44,04,602/-. He also filed a letter dated 09.11.2002 in response to the letter of the ACIT, 5 Mumbai dated 09.09.2002 stating that it was by mistake and oversight that the income of leasing hotel has been shown in the return under the head “income from house property” and deduction in respect of such income has been wrongly claimed

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

44. Learned Sessions Judge disallowed the questions holding that omission does not amount to contradiction and cannot be put under section

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 the claim taking a view that the income from the Bonds could not be treated to be income attributable to the banking business within the meaning of Section 80P(2)(a)(i) of the IT Act. The assessee’s appeal failed but the appellate Tribunal allowed the claim. Before the Punjab and Haryana High Court the question was whether

Commissioner of Income Tax-II, vs. M/S The A.P.Mahesh Coop. Urban Bank Ltd,

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

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

disallowed the claim taking a view that the income from the Bonds could not be treated to be income attributable to the banking business within the meaning of Section 80P(2)(a)(i) of the IT Act. The assessee’s appeal failed but the appellate Tribunal allowed the claim. Before the Punjab and Haryana High Court the question was whether

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 the claim taking a view that the income from the Bonds could not be treated to be income attributable to the banking business within the meaning of Section 80P(2)(a)(i) of the IT Act. The assessee’s appeal failed but the appellate Tribunal allowed the claim. Before the Punjab and Haryana High Court the question was whether

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 the claim taking a view that the income from the Bonds could not be treated to be income attributable to the banking business within the meaning of Section 80P(2)(a)(i) of the IT Act. The assessee’s appeal failed but the appellate Tribunal allowed the claim. Before the Punjab and Haryana High Court the question was whether

COMMR.OF I.T. A.P.I HYD vs. DIAMOND HATCHERIES (P) LTD

Appeal is allowed

disallowed the deduction of Rs.10,19,200/- under Section 80M of the Act claimed by the assessee and also estimated the Closing Stock as Rs.20,00,000/- after giving a benefit of Closing Stock of Rs.1,11,741/- in the assessment year 1983-84, made an addition of Rs.18,88,259/-. Aggrieved against the order of the Assessing Officer

CHENNAKESAVA PHARMACEUTICALS VIJAYAWADA vs. THE COMI.OF INCOMETAX VIJ.

In the result, all the appeals are allowed setting aside the common

Bench: GODA RAGHURAM,M.S.RAMACHANDRA RAO

disallowed and that itself cannot be a ground for levying a penalty. He relied on Commissioner of Income Tax Vs. Reliance Petroproducts Pvt. Ltd.[1] a n d Commissioner of Income Tax Vs. SAS Pharmaceuticals[2]. 2. For the levy of penalty under Section 271 (1) (c) of the Act, the assessing officer has to form his own opinion

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

The appeals stand dismissed

Bench: SANJAY KUMAR,GUDISEVA SHYAM PRASAD

44,41,112/- was made to the income of the assessee. Hence the income was assessed under Section 143(3) of the Act at ` 8,81,13,290/- vide order dated 30.01.2014, Annexure A.1. Aggrieved by the order, the assessee filed an appeal before the Commissioner of Income Tax, (Appeals), [CIT(A)]. Vide order dated 30.12.2014, the CIT(A) deleted

The Pr. Commissioner of Income-Tax-1 vs. M/s. New River Software System Pvt Ltd.,

The appeals are dismissed

Bench: RAMESH RANGANATHAN,M.SATYANARAYANA MURTHY

disallowance of interest of `75,47,897/- on unsecured loans was added under Section 68 of the Act and an amount of `1,51,200/- which was expended on the foreign guests was added. 3. Apropos the appeals filed in 2015, a similar reassessment order was passed pursuant to the search proceedings under Section 132, whereby inter alia additions

The Commissioner of Income Tax-I vs. Adaptec [India] Ltd

The appeals are dismissed

disallowance of interest of `75,47,897/- on unsecured loans was added under Section 68 of the Act and an amount of `1,51,200/- which was expended on the foreign guests was added. 3. Apropos the appeals filed in 2015, a similar reassessment order was passed pursuant to the search proceedings under Section 132, whereby inter alia additions

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

44 Trustees, Executors, an Administrator and Others have been held to fall within this section. The Hon'ble Court, thereupon, declared that: 'When fraud, mis-representation or undue influence is alleged by a party in a suit, normally, the burden is on him to prove such fraud, undue influence or misrepresentation. But, when a person is in a fiduciary relationship

The Commissioner of Income Tax-II vs. M/s.Pact Securities AND Financial Services Ltd

Bench: The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals), The Assessees Had Called In Question The Orders Of Assessing Officer (For Short ‘The A.O.’), Who, While Completing The Assessment For The Relevant Assessment Years Disallowed The Deduction Of The “Lease Equalization” Charges From The Lease Rental Income. The Disallowed Amounts By The Cit (Appeals) In These Appeals Are Of Rs.48,56,224/-, Rs,44,18,245/- & Rs.13,16,123/-.

disallowed amounts by the CIT (Appeals) in these appeals are of Rs.48,56,224/-, Rs,44,18,245/- and Rs.13,16,123/-. 3. Since the questions raised and the assessee in all four appeals are common, for the sake of convenience we state the facts leading to I.T.T.A.No.252 of 2003 preferred by the Revenue, to the extent they

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

disallowance. We feel the assessee should be allowed to write back the depreciation for this year and even for previous and then allow the same to be carried forward for application for subsequent years. It is for the assessee to write back depreciation and if Hi >- V II done the Assessing Officer will modify the assessment determining higher income

Commissioner of Income Tax vs. Sri B. Nagendar,

In the result, Tax Appeal is dismissed with a

Bench: CHALLA KODANDA RAM,G.CHANDRAIAH

section 80I, directing to adjust the same in interest  expenses?” 2. Briefly stated, the facts are that the assessee is a private Trust  Page 2 of 9 O/TAXAP/316/2001 JUDGMENT carrying   on   business   of   manufacturing   washing   powder   in   the  name of “K.K. Patel Industries”. The assessee filed the return of  income on 29.06.1988 declaring total income of Rs.1,44

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

Bench: CHALLA KODANDA RAM,G.CHANDRAIAH

44,00,000 18.12.99 18.12.99 – 31.5.01 @ 1% p.m. for 18 months 1.6.01 – 31.5.02 @ 0.75% p.m. for 12 months 1.6.02 – 31.8.04 @ 2/3% p.m. for 27 months Rs.25,92,000.00 Rs.12,96,000.00 Rs.25,66,080.00 3. Rs. 37,08,667 29.01.2000 29.1.2000 – 31.5.01 @ 1% p.m. for 5 months 1.6.01 – 31.5.02 @ 0.75% p.m. for 12 months