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

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

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

The Commissioner of Income Tax (Central) vs. G Radha Charan Reddy

Bench: RAMESH RANGANATHAN,M.SATYANARAYANA MURTHY

46 YEARS MARINE DRIVE, KOCHI - 31, REPRESENTED BY ITS DGM (TAXATION AND ACCOUNTS), MR.VARGHESE P. JACOB. BY ADVS. SRI.A.KUMAR SRI.P.J.ANILKUMAR SMTG.MINI1748 SRI.P.S.SREE PRASAD RESPONDENTS: 1 THE STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY SECRETARY, TAXES DEPARTMENT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM - 695 001. 2 COMMISSIONER OF COMMERCIAL TAXES THIRUVANANTHAPURAM - 695 001. 3 DEPUTY COMMISSIONER COMMERCIAL TAXES, ERNAKULAM - 682 018. 4 THE ASST.COMMISSIONER ASSESSMENT COMMERCIAL TAXES, SPECIAL

Commissioner of Income Tax vs. Agricultural Market Committee

In the result, both the substantial questions

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

46(2) of the Act as capital loss in view of decision in CIT VS. JAI KRISHNA, 231 ITR 108 is perverse? 2. Facts leading to filing of this appeal briefly stated are that assessee is engaged in the business of manufacture of field instrumentation. The assessee filed the return declaring loss of Rs.7,40,96,877/- on 29.10.2001, which

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

Section 34(2) of the Act, the learned District Judge has the power to set aside the award on the said ground, and exercise of such power cannot be said to be beyond jurisdiction. The Issue of Escalation of Price of Materials:- 24. The appellant, before the Arbitrator had made a claim of Rs. 28,92,193/- on account

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 :-

2) 84 TTJ (Del) 776 M/s. Onkar Engineers Private Limited Vs. ITO 3) 46 ITR 181 (Bom) M/s. C.P. Pictures Limited Vs. CIT 4) (1981) 128 ITR 402 (Del) Addl. CIT Vs. M/s. Rajindra Flour & Allied Industries Private Limited and several other decisions. 3.5 The appellant has also given several decisions to support its claim that liability of prior period

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

disallowed as 'capital loss' and the advances amounting to Rs.2,32,93,575/- given for acquisition of revenue items subsequently written off are held as allowable under Section 37 of the Act as 'current expenses'. 2 (1974) 96 ITR 568 (J&K) 3 (1962) 46

Commissioner of Income Tax - II vs. M/s. Healthware Private Limited

In the result, the order passed by the tribunal

46,17,415/- under Section 115JB of the Act. The case was selected for scrutiny and notice under Section 143(2) of the Act was 4 issued. The Assessing Officer passed an order under Section 143(3) of the Act on 31.12.2007 and disallowed

Commissioner of Income Tax-2, vs. Agricultural Market Committee,

The appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: V.V.S.RAO,SANJAY KUMAR

2. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the ld. CIT(A) has erred in deleting the addition of Rs.13,61,450/- made by the AO for not charging of interest on loans and advances given to Directors and Subsidiaries. 3. It is prayed that the order of the ld. CIT(A) be set aide and that

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

2) of the Act was issued to the assessee. 5. The Assessing Officer passed an order of assessment on 30.11.2007 under Section 143(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

M/s Kausalya Agro Farms and Developers pvt. ltd vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax

The appeals are allowed

Bench: N.TUKARAMJI,UJJAL BHUYAN

2. Whether the Tribunal misdirected itself in dealing with a contention based on Section 153-A read with Section 153- C of the Act as if the reassessment is challenged based on HCJ & NTRJ I.T.T.A.Nos.259 of 2022 & batch 4 the material recovered at the time of search of a group concern? 3. Whether the Tribunal failed to appreciate that

M/s. Dakshin Infrastructures Private Limited vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax

The appeals are allowed

Bench: N.TUKARAMJI,UJJAL BHUYAN

2. Whether the Tribunal misdirected itself in dealing with a contention based on Section 153-A read with Section 153- C of the Act as if the reassessment is challenged based on HCJ & NTRJ I.T.T.A.Nos.259 of 2022 & batch 4 the material recovered at the time of search of a group concern? 3. Whether the Tribunal failed to appreciate that

The Pr. Commissioner of Income vs. Shri. Vishnu Mohan Reddy Chintapally

Appeal is disposed of

Bench: J SREENIVAS RAO,ALOK ARADHE

Sections 143(2) and 142(1) of the Act, along with a questionnaire, were issued on 05.07.2016 and duly served on 08.07.2016. Digitally Signed By:RAM KUMAR Signing Date:10.02.2025 14:40:57 Signature Not Verified ITA No.113/2024 Page 4 of 8 10. The assessment order dated 20.12.2016 passed in the name of the Firm records that in response

The Commissioner of Income Tax- I vs. M/s. Avon Organics Limited

Bench: GODA RAGHURAM,M.S.RAMACHANDRA RAO

disallowed as revenue expenditure but capitalised, is as under:- “S.No. Expenses Head Amount 01. Salary & Wages 2283936 02 Employer Contribution to PF 46658 03 Employer Contribution to ESI 46919 04 Admin Charges PF/EDLI 4316 05 ESLI Charges 1943 06 Medical Expenses 151 07 Books & Periodicals 986 08 House Keeping Expenses 42493 09 Generator Running Maintt. 25121 ITA 257/2012 Page

Mr. K.S.N.Raju vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax,

Bench: ANIS,SANJAY KUMAR

46 years, Occu. Teacher, SG Punde 2 APEAL418.2016.odt R/o. Basavkalyan, Tq. Basavkalyan, Dist. Bidar (KS.) ...Respondents ..... Mrs. Vaishali S. Choudhari – APP for appellant/State Mr. Sunil B. Jadhav – Advocate for respondents ..… CORAM : SMT. VIBHA KANKANWADI AND ABHAY S. WAGHWASE, JJ. ARGUMENTS CONCLUDED AND RESERVED ON : 28TH AUGUST, 2023 JUDGMENT PRONOUNCED ON : 12TH SEPTEMBER, 2023 JUDGMENT : [ Per : Abhay S. Waghwase

THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX III, vs. M/S. SAVIJANA SEA FOODS PVT. LTD.,

Appeals of the Revenue are dismissed

Bench: J SREENIVAS RAO,ALOK ARADHE

2)(xv) of the Indian Income Tax Act, 1922? It was acknowledged that “In choosing to compensate its constituents for the loss of their jewellery and maintain its business connections and goodwill, the bank laid out expenditure for the purpose of its business.” 32. It was further explained that “The sole question is whether the bank in incurring the expenditure

Commissioner of Income Tax, vs. M/s. Kokivenkateswara Reddy AND others,

Appeals of the Revenue are dismissed

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

2)(xv) of the Indian Income Tax Act, 1922? It was acknowledged that “In choosing to compensate its constituents for the loss of their jewellery and maintain its business connections and goodwill, the bank laid out expenditure for the purpose of its business.” 32. It was further explained that “The sole question is whether the bank in incurring the expenditure