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

Section 36 (1) (iii) regarding advance of borrowed funds, to its sister concern?; (2) Did the ITAT fall into error in holding that the sum of `25,04,385/- brought to tax by the AO on the interest free deposit of ` 1,75,50,000/- was not sustainable?; (3) Is the ITAT’s order- that the assessee’s revised

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

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 :-

54,21,003/-. The depreciation was claimed on the block assets which are mentioned in Schedule-5 (fixed assets) to the balance-sheet. The assessing officer has not passed any assessment order on the basis of returns filed by the assessee. Instead, subsequently, he issued a notice under Section 148 of the Act, 1961 and passed an assessment order dated

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

disallowing interest on the ground that interest payments had not been debited to the profit and loss account and there is no direct nexus between the interest paid to term lenders and the interest earned from other sources. It is further submitted that the interest income accrued from the monies kept in the fixed deposits and nexus between the deposit

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

Section 161 may amount to contradiction of 54 Neutral Citation No. ( 2025:HHC:2282-DB ) the deposition in court; they are the cases where what is actually stated is irreconcilable with what is omitted and impliedly negatives its existence.” 45. A question arose before the Hon’ble Supreme Court whether the questions were wrongly disallowed

The Commissioner of Income Tax [Central] vs. Akula Nageswara Rao

The appeals stand dismissed

Bench: SANJAY KUMAR,GUDISEVA SHYAM PRASAD

54,21,467/- which was processed under Section 143(1) of the Act. The case was selected for scrutiny under “CASS”. During the course of assessment proceedings, the Assessing Officer by invoking the provisions of Section 80IC(7) read with Section 80IA(10) of the Act recomputed the deduction admissible under Section 80IC of the Act and an addition

M/S AVANTHI BUSINESS MACHINES LTD., HYDERABAD. vs. DCIT [ASSTS] CIRCLE -1 [1] HYDERABAD.

Appeal is disposed of

Bench: N.TUKARAMJI,UJJAL BHUYAN

disallowing the said amount was . fully justilied and accordingly dismissed the appeal on this ground. 7. In further appeal before the Tribunal, it was held that there was no inlirmity in the view taken by the frrst appellate authority. ) 8. In Brooke Bond India Ltd. v. Commissioner of Income Taxr. Suprt-'me Court hacl held that expenses incurred in issue

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

AD-AGE OUTDOOR ADVERTISING P LTD., HYDERABAD. vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONEER OF INCOME TAX, HYDERABAD.

Bench: T.VINOD KUMAR,M.S.RAMACHANDRA RAO

54 of 2009 and 20 of 2011 Reserved on: 21.12.2024 Date of decision : 31.12.2024. H.P. State Civil Supplies Corporation Ltd. ...Appellant. Versus Asstt. Commissioner of Income Tax &another ...Respondents Coram: The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Tarlok Singh Chauhan, Judge. The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Satyen Vaidya, Judge. Whether approved for reporting?1Yes. For the appellants : Mr. Vishal Mohan, Sr. Advocate

The Commissioner of Incoe Tax III, vs. Raj Breeders and Hatcheries (PVT) Liited,

Bench: RAMESH RANGANATHAN,M.SATYANARAYANA MURTHY

54 of 2009 and 20 of 2011 Reserved on: 21.12.2024 Date of decision : 31.12.2024. H.P. State Civil Supplies Corporation Ltd. ...Appellant. Versus Asstt. Commissioner of Income Tax &another ...Respondents Coram: The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Tarlok Singh Chauhan, Judge. The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Satyen Vaidya, Judge. Whether approved for reporting?1Yes. For the appellants : Mr. Vishal Mohan, Sr. Advocate

Commissioner of income tax, vs. M/s. R.K. Palace,

Bench: RAMESH RANGANATHAN,M.SATYANARAYANA MURTHY

54 of 2009 and 20 of 2011 Reserved on: 21.12.2024 Date of decision : 31.12.2024. H.P. State Civil Supplies Corporation Ltd. ...Appellant. Versus Asstt. Commissioner of Income Tax &another ...Respondents Coram: The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Tarlok Singh Chauhan, Judge. The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Satyen Vaidya, Judge. Whether approved for reporting?1Yes. For the appellants : Mr. Vishal Mohan, Sr. Advocate

Commissioner of Income Tax-I vs. Agricultural Market Committee

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

54 of 2009 and 20 of 2011 Reserved on: 21.12.2024 Date of decision : 31.12.2024. H.P. State Civil Supplies Corporation Ltd. ...Appellant. Versus Asstt. Commissioner of Income Tax &another ...Respondents Coram: The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Tarlok Singh Chauhan, Judge. The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Satyen Vaidya, Judge. Whether approved for reporting?1Yes. For the appellants : Mr. Vishal Mohan, Sr. Advocate

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

disallowance of interest, it will not be possible for us to adjudicate this ground. Therefore, we set aside the issue of interest of Rs.7,54,797/- back to the file of assessing officer to decide the same afresh, considering our conclusion on applicability of sec. 68, commencement of business in 2007- 08, after giving the assessee reasonable opportunity of being

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

The appeals are dismissed

disallowance of interest, it will not be possible for us to adjudicate this ground. Therefore, we set aside the issue of interest of Rs.7,54,797/- back to the file of assessing officer to decide the same afresh, considering our conclusion on applicability of sec. 68, commencement of business in 2007- 08, after giving the assessee reasonable opportunity of being

Commissioner of Income Tax, vs. M/s Polisetty Somasundaram,

Section 80-G. (10) The assessee-company had claimed total expenses of Rs.1,97,72,54,772/- under different heads in the P & L Account. No details were furnished by the assessee to prove the genuineness of these expenses. Moreover, the expenses under various heads were allowable only when TDS was deducted and deposited in the Government account. Since

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

Bench: RAMESH RANGANATHAN,M.SATYANARAYANA MURTHY

disallowed to the petitioner. It is contended that like any other fiscal statute, the grant of input tax is a concession or relaxation and nobody is expected to claim it as a matter of vested right. The denial of the benefit of availing input tax credit to the purchases from dealers who opt for compounding facility cannot

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

Section 115JB of the Act. The Assessing Officer in the assessment order has recorded that the assessee had debited a sum of Rs.31,54,844/- in the computation of income as deferred revenue expense and 10% of the said amount was debited to the profit and loss account as deferred revenue expenditure. The assessee was accordingly asked to justify

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