The Commissioner of Income Tax I vs. M/s. Bhagiradha Chemicals AND Industries Ltd.,

The appeal is disposed of

53,949/- had been paid to the two Managing Directors, but should have been disallowed under Section 36(1)(ii) of the Act. Secondly

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

Sri Rajesh Rawtani vs. The Income Tax Officer

The appeals are disposed off in the above

Bench: P.SAM KOSHY,SUDDALA CHALAPATHI RAO

1) (arising in ITA-1578/2010 and 278/2010)? (4) Whether the Tribunal fell into error in holding that loss of one project eligible for deduction under Section-80 HHB could not be set of against the profits of other projects eligible under the same provision (arising in ITA 1578/2010 and 278/2010)? 3. Question No.1 – Whether the provisions made claiming deduction

The Commissioner of Income Tax-III vs. Smt.Anitha Sanghi

Bench: RAMESH RANGANATHAN,M.SATYANARAYANA MURTHY

53,033/- as book profit under Section 115JA of the Act. The return was processed under Section 143(1) of the Act resulting in refund of Rs.10,62,37,618/-. Thereafter a notice was issued under Section 143(2) of the Act. The Assessing Officer by an order dated 31.12.2002 inter alia held that since exempted dividend does not form

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

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

The appeal of the assessee is allowed

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

53,03,064/- and Rs.49,38,930/- is recoverable against sale of land and building from Shri A.S.Bhatia. The major component of Rs.2,19,82,821/- is an advance for setting up Biotechnology Plant at Dera Bassi to subsidiary company.” Aggrieved by the order passed by the ld. CIT(A), the revenue went in appeal and the Tribunal observed that

Commissioner of Income Tax vs. Sri. B. Venkatesam,

The appeal stands disposed of with no order as to

disallowance of `1,64,87,375 - disputed additional customs duty claimed by the assessee as a part of the landed cost of goods. 8. The facts, relevant to the question of deduction on account of additional customs duty, briefly stated are as follows: The appellant is, interalia, engaged in manufacturing and trading of products like de-oiled meals, industrial hard

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

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

53 allegation of the Owners, as available from the testimony of PW1, that the then SRO was also acting illegally so as to help the defendants, though I cannot hold so affirmatively since the said officer has not been summoned or examined. 66. However, this makes it no easier for the defendants because both the Buyers, when they testified

THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-I vs. M/S. A.P. BEVERAGES CORP. LTD.,

The appeal is disposed of

Bench: P.SAM KOSHY,NARSING RAO NANDIKONDA

disallowing actual warranty expenses of Rs.12,53,441/- and Rs.48,54,522/- on account of provision for warranty?” 2. Learned counsel for the parties have addressed arguments as a short issue is involved and is covered by an earlier decision of this Court in Commissioner of Income Tax versus Woodward Governor India Limited

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

53 Neutral Citation No. ( 2025:HHC:2282-DB ) statement made to the police cannot be used for any purpose except to contradict the prosecution witness as per Section 162 of Cr. PC. Therefore, it is not permissible to ask a witness as to what was told by him to the police and prove the statement recorded by the police

The Commissioner of income Tax-II vs. M/s.Ideal Industrial Explosives Ltd

Bench: RAMESH RANGANATHAN,M.SATYANARAYANA MURTHY

Section 115JA(1) which reads: “(g) the amount or amounts set aside as provision for diminution in the value of any asset” is not disallowance of Rs.8,61,53

The Commissioner of Income Tax-IV vs. Nekkanti Sea Foods Limited

The appeal is dismissed without any order as to costs

Bench: P.SAM KOSHY,NARSING RAO NANDIKONDA

disallowed the claim by treating the entire expense as incurred on capital account. Even depreciation was not allowed. 5. The CIT (Appeals) affirmed the aforesaid findings given by the Assessing Officer. 6. In the second appeal before the tribunal, it has been held that the expenditure incurred was a revenue expense and should be allowed. ITA 160/2012 Page

COMMR.OF INCOME TAX VISAKHAPATNAM vs. SOUTH GLORY INTERNATIONAL P.LTD VISAKHAP

Appeal is disposed of

Section 37 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 in the year in which it is incurred?” TA NO. 18 OF 1999 2 Learned counsel for the appellant contended that for the same assessee, the Department has accepted the claim of the appellant for the years 1987-88, 1988-89 & 1989-90, but only for the years

COMM OF WEALTHTAX HYD vs. M/S. N.K.LEASINGANDCONST CO P.LTD HYD

Appeal is disposed of

Section 37 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 in the year in which it is incurred?” Learned counsel for the appellant contended that for the same assessee, the Department has accepted the claim of the appellant for the years 1987-88, 1988-89 & 1989-90, but only for the years 1990-91 and 1991-92, the same was disallowed. Subsequently

Commissioner of Income Tax, vs. M/s Mohan Milk Line Private Limited,

Bench: RAMESH RANGANATHAN,M.SATYANARAYANA MURTHY

53 years. …..Appellant(s)/Petitioner(s) Through: Mr. Virinder Bhat, Advocate Vs Income Tax Officer, Ward 2 (2), Jammu .…. Respondent(s) Through: Mr. Suraj Singh Wazir, CGSC Coram: HON’BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJNESH OSWAL, JUDGE ORDER 02.04.2026 1. This appeal has been filed by the appellant under Section 260-A of Income

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

1], the view taken above has been reiterated in the following words: ‚25. Moreover, umpteen numbers of judgments of this Court have categorically held that the courts should not interfere with an Page 30 of 60 award merely because an alternative view on facts and interpretation of contract exists. The courts need to be cautious and should defer

Commissioner of Income Tax-III., vs. Smt. Chirala Nivedita Reddy

disallowed certain amounts including the exemption claimed under Section 10(29) of the Act, as well as certain categories of income and purchase. (While the matter stood thus, on 17.3.2006, the A.O. issued a reassessment notice, this time alleging that exemption claimed under Section 10(29) was inadmissible. He sought to add back