The Commissoner of Income Tax I , vs. M/s. Alpha Thought Technologies P Ltd.,

In the result, the orders passed by the

Bench: RAMESH RANGANATHAN,M.SATYANARAYANA MURTHY

3) of the Act and disallowed the claim of interest paid to the financial institutions, which was claimed as deduction under Section 57 of the Act to the tune of Rs.12,80,461/- as capital expenditure. The Assessing Officer determined the total income of the assessee as Rs.15,77,700/-. The Assessing Officer also invoked the 7 provisions of Section

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

Bench: RAMESH RANGANATHAN,M.SATYANARAYANA MURTHY

3 of Ex.P4 stipulates a period of sixty days for execution of sale deed, and this has to be reckoned from the date of agreement, and alternatively, within a period of seven days reckoned from the obtainment of No Objection under Chapter XXC and Certificate under section 230A of the Income Tax Act, 1961, as per the requirement

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

Section 2(15) of the Act?. 44. We are dealing with a taxing statute. The intention of the legislature in a taxation statute is to be gathered from the language of the provisions particularly where the language is plain and unambiguous. In a Taxing Act, it is not possible to assume any intention or the governing purpose of the statute

The Commissioner of Income Tax -V, vs. M/S Secunderabad Club

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

3 of 10 7. The assessee incorrectly claimed chapter VI-A deductions on income which included income from other sources i.e. interest income amounting to Rs. 1,73,09,453/- instead of restricting the deduction to the extent of income from the profits and gains of business as has been prescribed in the provisions of section 80AB. This action

PR COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX vs. R SURYANARAYANA

In the result, the appeal filed by the revenue stands

Bench: RAMESH RANGANATHAN,KONGARA VIJAYA LAKSHMI

45,778/- on account of additional depreciation made by the assessing officer without citing any cogent reason merely by stating that the findings of the CIT (Appeals) was not rebutted by the department before it whereas the fact was that the department relied on the finding made by the assessing officer in the assessment order? (iii) Whether on the facts

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-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 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-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 -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 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. Dr. T.Ravi Kumar

The appeal is disposed of

disallow the deduction as claimed by the assessee under Section 80IB(10) of the Act and to carry out the assessment 5 afresh in accordance with law after affording an opportunity of hearing to the assessee. 3. Being aggrieved, the assessee filed an appeal before the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Tribunal’, for short). The Tribunal

The Director of Income Tax (Exemptions) vs. G Pulla Reddy Chritable Trust

In the result, the orders passed by the Commissioner of

Bench: CHALLA KODANDA RAM,G.CHANDRAIAH

3. Thereafter a notice under Section 263 of the Act was issued by the Commissioner of Income Tax inter alia on the ground that income assessed as income from business in respect of sale of properties as income from capital gains to disallow interest on loan of purchase of property as deduction from sale consideration, to direct the Assessing Officer

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

3) SCR 725 that a person speaking on oath should be presumed to be a truthful witness unless there is something inherently improbable in his testimony. It was observed: “The ordinary presumption is that a witness speaking under an oath is truthful unless and until he is shown to be untruthful or unreliable in any particular respect. The High Court

The Commissioner of Income Tax III, vs. M/s. Swagath Seeds Private Limited

Bench: RAMESH RANGANATHAN,M.SATYANARAYANA MURTHY

45(3) of the Act? iv) Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal is right in law in setting aside the disallowance made in respect of long term capital asset even when the land in question was not an agricultural land and same is rightly treated as capital asset within the meaning of Sec.2

The Commissioner of Income Tax-III, vs. M/S Sarada Projects Pvt. Ltd,

Appeals stand dismissed accordingly

3 of 8 O/TAXAP/620/2006 JUDGMENT were much more than the balance no disallowance of interest was called for. 3.1 In support of his submissions, Mr. Soparkar has relied upon the decision of this Court in the case of Commissioner of Income-tax vs. Raghuvir Synthetics Ltd reported in [2013] 354 ITR 222 and in the case of Commissioner of Income