M/s.Tata Teleservices Limited vs. Dy. Commissioner of Income Tax

Bench: SUJOY PAUL,NAMAVARAPU RAJESHWAR RAO

48,90,000/-, the disallowance ultimately directed works out to nearly 110% of that sum, i.e., Rs.52,56,197/-. By no stretch of imagination can Section

THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX-IV, HYDERABAD vs. M/S NAVA BHARAT VENTURES LTD., HYD

The appeal is dismissed

Bench: P.SAM KOSHY,NARSING RAO NANDIKONDA

48,992/- by invoking the provisions of Section B0-IA(8) and Section 80-IA (10) of the Act, 1961. He further submitted that the Assessing Officer observed that the power plants were set up for Captive C,tnsumption and the APStrE; has granted sanction only for the purpose of Captive Consumption. Since the main objective for setting

The Pr. Commissioner of Income-tax vs. D.L.V. Sridhar

Bench: D.V.S.S.SOMAYAJULU,RAMESH RANGANATHAN

disallowed the entire claim of Rs.1,48,89,090/- under section 10A of the Act. 5. The aforesaid addition was deleted

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

disallowance can be made.” 9. It is argued by the revenue that ITAT has failed to appreciate that for the claim of interest, it is necessary that, firstly, the money ITA Nos.512/2013, 516/2013, 517/2013, 518/2013, 519/2013 & 526/2013 Page 10 must have been borrowed by the assessee, secondly, it must have been borrowed for the purpose of business and thirdly

PRL COMM OF INCOME TAX-2, HYDERABAD vs. M/S NUZIVIDU SWATHI COASTAL CONSORTIUM, HYDERABAD

In the result, the appeal is disposed of

Bench: M.GANGA RAO,RAMESH RANGANATHAN

disallowed. The tribunal further held that the issue pertaining to Section 115JAA of the Act was not argued and the assessee cannot go back to the computation on the issue pertaining to Section 14A of the Act. In the result, the appeal was dismissed. In the aforesaid factual background, the assessee has filed this appeal. 6 4. Learned counsel

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

disallowed by the Act. In SETH M DALMIA supra, the Supreme Court referred to with approval the decision of the Bombay High Court in ‘COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX VS. H.H.MAHARANI VIJAYKUVERBA SAHEB OF MORVI’, (1975) 100 ITR 67, wherein the Bombay High Court while dealing with Section 12(2) of the Act, held that deduction permissible under the aforesaid provision

Principal Commissioner of Income Tax vs. M/s Nara Constructions,

Bench: CHALLA KODANDA RAM,C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY

disallowed while computing the total income is not deemed to be income in respect of which particulars have been concealed. 6. In the context of the present case, we would like to first reproduce clause (viii) of Section 36(1) of the Act as applicable in the Assessment Years 2003-2004 to 2009-2010, which reads:- “36. (1) The deductions

THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-I, vs. AYYAPPA INFRA PROJECTS PVT LTD.,

Bench: RAMESH RANGANATHAN,M.SATYANARAYANA MURTHY

section 143(3) on 17.12.2010 raising a demand of Rs.5,15,095/-. A sum of Rs.23,48,979/- for the CAD documentation and other charges, the petitioner was required to explain why the expense should not be disallowed

Director of Income Tax (International Taxation) vs. Dr. K. Kalpana Reddy

Bench: M.GANGA RAO,RAMESH RANGANATHAN

disallow the claim of deduction? 2. Facts giving rise to filing of this appeal briefly stated are that the assessee is a banking company. The assessee filed return of income for Assessment Year 2007-08 on 29.10.2007 declaring total income of Rs.593,48,70,178/-. The return was processed under Section

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

In the result, the appeal fails and is hereby dismissed

48,47,870/- 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

M/S.VISWARUPA BUILDERS AND DEVELOPERS(P)LTD vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER,WARD-3

The appeal is dismissed

Bench: This Court As Arising From The Impugned Order Of The Itat Read As Under:

48,231/-. Since this was not disclosed before IT authorities, Section 69A of the IT Act was invoked only as regards this amount and the disallowance

PRL COMMR OF INCOME TAX, TIRUPATI, CHITTOOR DIST vs. V DWARAKANATH REDDY, CHITTOOR

The appeals are hereby dismissed

Bench: RAMESH RANGANATHAN,KONGARA VIJAYA LAKSHMI

48 dated 26.08.2008 (free of cost). (f) The Trust has given as “Charity” of 'town cleaning machine' (vaccum Machine) to the Municipal Corporation, Bathinda, for Rs. 64.86 Lakhs vide Resolution No.56 (app. Rs. Ten Lacs) vide Letter No.1146 dated 24.09.2007 (free of cost). (g) To provide Land as well as construction of building for 14 plots measuring 1512 sq. ydds

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

48 Neutral Citation No. ( 2025:HHC:2282-DB ) Roop Nagar. The accused was questioned whether he wanted to join the test identification parade. He refused to join. He is warned that his refusal to join TIP may be interpreted as evidence against him. Still, he does not want to participate in TIP. Let his statement be recorded.” 9. Thereafter

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

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