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

Section 68 of the Act for Assessment Years (AYs) 2002-03, 2003-04, 2005-06 and 2007-08. These amounts, being primarily towards monies received from various companies as well as disallowances of expenditure, were debited to the profit & loss account for AYs 2002-03, 2003-04 and 2005-06. For AY 2007-08 disallowance of interest of `75,47

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

The appeals are dismissed

Section 68 of the Act for Assessment Years (AYs) 2002-03, 2003-04, 2005-06 and 2007-08. These amounts, being primarily towards monies received from various companies as well as disallowances of expenditure, were debited to the profit & loss account for AYs 2002-03, 2003-04 and 2005-06. For AY 2007-08 disallowance of interest of `75,47

THE PRL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX [CENTRAL] HYDERABAD vs. M/S SREE NAGENDRA CONSTRUCTIONS, KHAMMAM

In the result, appeal stands dismissed

Bench: This

Section 35-D were not satisfied? 2. Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal is right in setting aside the disallowance of exchange fluctuation loss of Rs.3,63,47

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

Appeal is disposed of

Bench: J SREENIVAS RAO,ALOK ARADHE

disallowance of expenditure for personal use. 12. The learned PCIT exercising its powers under Section 263 of the Act, issued a show cause notice dated 25.02.2019 calling upon CFIPL to show cause why the assessment order dated 20.12.2016 not be set aside for the reasons mentioned in the aforesaid notice. 13. CFIPL responded to the show cause notice, inter alia

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

47 Neutral Citation No. ( 2025:HHC:2282-DB ) reasonable cause for not participating in the Test Identification Parade cannot be accepted. 40. It was laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Munna v. State (NCT of Delhi), (2003) 10 SCC 599: 2004 SCC (Cri) 944: 2003 SCC OnLine SC 916 that where the accused refused to participate

THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, GUNTUR vs. M/s. Bommidala Brothers Limited

Bench: RAMESH RANGANATHAN,M.SATYANARAYANA MURTHY

disallowed under Section 80HHC of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as „the Act of 1961‟). 2. Retrospectivity given to Section 80HHC of the Act of 1961 has been held to be ultra vires by the Gujarat High Court and affirmed by Hon’ble the Supreme Court in the case of Commissioner of Income Tax v. Avani Exports

Commissioenr of Income Tax vs. Dr. T. Ravi Kumar

disallowance after appreciation of facts and circumstances of the case, no penalty is exigable as the appellant did not conceal any income or filed inaccurate particulars on income (CIT Vs. Inden Bislers(1999) 240 ITR 943, 46, 947 (Mad) (Trib); CIT vs. D. Ratnam (1995) Tax L R 504, 505. 507 (Mad) (Trib): Cit vs. Jagdish are Bhandar

The Commissioner of Income Tax, vs. M/s. K.C.P.Limited

In the result, the appeal fails and is hereby dismissed

47,870/- The return was processed under Section 143(1) of the Act on 31.10.2006 and a refund of Rs.27,06,17,046/- was issued. Subsequently, the return filed by the assessee was selected for scrutiny and a notice under Section 143(2) of the Act was issued on 25.09.2006. The Assessing Officer scrutinized the details furnished and completed

Commissioner of Income Tax-III vs. Sri N.Sai Baba Naidu

Bench: J SREENIVAS RAO,ALOK ARADHE

disallowed. The net result was an addition of `52,92,000/-. 3. The assessee filed an appeal to the CIT(Appeals) and reiterated the stand taken by him before the assessing officer. The CIT(Appeals) affirmed the order of the assessing officer and dismissed the assessee’s appeal. The assessee appealed further to the Tribunal in ITA No.4652/Del/2010. The Tribunal

COMM.OF INCOME TAX VISAKHAPATNAM vs. BHANU ENTERPRISES KAKINADA

Section 256(1) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (for short ‘the Act’). The appellant is a manufacturing unit and is extended with the High Tension Power Supply by the then A.P. State Electricity Board. During the year 1988-89, the power tariff was revised substantially. Challenging the same, the applicant filed writ petition before this Court, and on dismissal

The Commissioner of Income Tax IV vs. Margadarshi Chit Fund Pvt. Ltd.,

The appeal is dismissed

disallowing expenditure, on surmises and conjenctures without finding any discrepancy in Audited books of account?” While allowed the appeals, it has been observed that all the three authorities had acted on surmises and guess work while sustaining the additions of different amounts. Further the authorities were required to have some material to come to the conclusion that the addition

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

Bench: CHALLA KODANDA RAM,G.CHANDRAIAH

47,453.00 Income offered at the time of hearing U/s 245D(4) in revised SOF 10,00,000.00 ---------------- TOTAL 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

The Commissioner of Income Tax vs. Shri Byru Venkateswarlu

Appeal is dismissed

Bench: RAMESH RANGANATHAN,M.SATYANARAYANA MURTHY

Disallowance of Dalali Rs.2,136/- 15” 6. Counsel for the appellant has further contended that the Gujarat High Court in the case of National Textiles vs. Commissioner of Income Tax reported in 249 ITR 0125 in para 21-24 has observed as under: “21. The provisions of section 68 permitting the assessing officer to treat unexplained cash credit as income

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

disallowable on the ground of such payment having been made for „extraneous considerations.‟ 34. In Kanga and Palkhivala‟s Commentary on the Income Tax Law Volume 1, the distinction between the expressions “for the purpose of earning profits‟ and „for purpose of the business‟ was brought out as under: “11. Wholly and Exclusively for the Purposes of the Business

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

Appeals of the Revenue are dismissed

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

disallowable on the ground of such payment having been made for „extraneous considerations.‟ 34. In Kanga and Palkhivala‟s Commentary on the Income Tax Law Volume 1, the distinction between the expressions “for the purpose of earning profits‟ and „for purpose of the business‟ was brought out as under: “11. Wholly and Exclusively for the Purposes of the Business

M/S.MALLIKARJUNA RICE INDUSTRIES vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER

Bench: N.TUKARAMJI,UJJAL BHUYAN

disallowed d b;rck to the t()r-'il itrcotlre oi tl-ie rs scs';ee u4rile rq the assessmctrt tttrtle r Scctior i4ll'' t o1 the Act' v.Snotdorrc'lsscsstlrgo[licerrsstre.lri<.ticetlnder 1li4 oi the Act on l6'01'lCCl ro ihe;rppe[ant Lg to adcl the otrt st 'rritlir lg :llrlottrlt

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

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