Commissioner of Income Tax -II vs. The Agrasen 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) of the Andhra Pradesh Cooperative Societies Rules, 1964 (the Societies Rules). The assessing officer came

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) of the Andhra Pradesh Cooperative Societies Rules, 1964 (the Societies Rules). The assessing officer came

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) of the Andhra Pradesh Cooperative Societies Rules, 1964 (the Societies Rules). The assessing officer came

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

disallows any future claims for escalation is conclusive and binding on the parties. If the clause debarring future claims permits escalation subject to certain conditions, no claim is admissible if the conditions are not satisfied. However, if the conditions are satisfied, the Contractor will have a right to claim escalation. This is a contractual right. The right originates and subsists

Commissioner of Income Tax-3, vs. M/s State Bank of Hyderabad

Bench: RAMESH RANGANATHAN,M.SATYANARAYANA MURTHY

55,631/- even when the analyzing the materials on record established that the said comparable satisfied all the required tests otherwise the Tribunal ought to have remanded the matter for fresh determination since the other companies retained by Tribunal were also of not same field? 2. Whether the Tribunal is justified in directing the assessing officer to recomputed the deduction

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

2) or under Section 37(1) of the Act. The Assessing Officer determined the total income at Rs.4,03,17,086/- and proceeded to determine the expenditure of Rs.13,20,338/- as having incurred in relation of income received by way of dividend. 5 3. The assessee thereupon filed an appeal before Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals

The Director of Income Tax (Exemptions) vs. G Pulla Reddy Chritable Trust

In the result, the orders passed by the Commissioner of

Bench: CHALLA KODANDA RAM,G.CHANDRAIAH

55,438/-. The case of the assessee was selected for scrutiny and a notice under Section 143(2) of the Act was issued on 30.08.2010. The Assessing Officer by an order dated 15.12.2011 after making enquiries concluded the assessment by bringing to charge the income arising from sale of properties as income from business as it was found that

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

Bench: P.SAM KOSHY,NARSING RAO NANDIKONDA

2 claimed 100% deduction under Se under which the Parties can claim and not for sale of Power to Assessment Order for the Assess 2005-06, the claim of deduction 196 1 was disallowed as assessee under Section 80-IA of the Rs.37,34,55

Commissioner of Income Tax-V, vs. Sri S.Venkat Reddy, (PAN ALAPS4009A)

In the result, the appeal fails and is hereby

2. Whether, on the facts and circumstances of the case, the Tribunal is right in law in holding that assesssee is eligible for deduction of the claim of expenditure/liability to an extent of Rs.1,35,73,930/- in respect of excise transport fees even though the same was not claimed in original return and assessing authority has not made

The Commissioner of Income Tax IV vs. Praga Tools Limited

Bench: GODA RAGHURAM,N.RAVI SHANKAR

55,3 purposes of determining deducti NJAB AND HARYANA ARH ITA-81-2012 (O&M) Date of Decision: 25.07.2024 …Appellant …Respondent NJEEV PRAKASH SHARMA NJAY VASHISTH or the appellant. ) .03.2014, for determination on he circumstances of the case, the lding the decision of Ld. CIT(A) cate the expenses on sales ratio Rs.142.24 lacs as against the on account

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

Bench: GODA RAGHURAM,M.S.RAMACHANDRA RAO

55 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI Date of decision: 11th August, 2014 + INCOME TAX APPEAL 257/2012 OMNIGLOBE INFORMATION TECH INDIA PVT LTD ..... Appellant Through Mr. Ajay Vohra and Ms. Kavita Jha, Advocates. versus CIT ..... Respondent Through Mr. Sanjeev Sabharwal, Sr. Standing Counsel. CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJIV KHANNA HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE V. KAMESWAR

The Commisioner of Income TAx-1 vs. Divya Shakti Granites Ltd.,

Bench: RAMESH RANGANATHAN,M.SATYANARAYANA MURTHY

section 55 of the Transfer of Property Act, 1882 mounted on the shoulders of vendor to vouch a clear and marketable title, unless contrary is contracted. It has been held by the Privy Council in MOTILAL vs. NANHELAL5 that there is an implied covenant by the vendor to do all things necessary to effect a transfer; so when a vendor

Commissioner of IncomeTax-2, vs. Mr. Mustafa Alam Khan,

Appeal is allowed

Bench: SANJAY KUMAR,GUDISEVA SHYAM PRASAD

2 of 1886), was in force: 10 (c)in the case of any block of assets,- (i)in respect of any previous year relevant to the assessment year commencing on the 1st day of April, 1988, the aggregate of the written down values of all the assets falling within that block of assets at the beginning of the previous year

M/s. Kamma Sangaham, vs. The Director of Income -Tax (Exemptions),

Section 263 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 [hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act 1961’]. 4. In appeal, the CIT(A) upheld the order passed by the assessing officer, which was also affirmed by the Tribunal in appeal filed by the assessee. The assessee carried the matter to this Court in ITA No.271 of 2005, which was disposed

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

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

2 of the additional written statement of Sri.Rafi and paragraph 3 of the additional written statement of Sri.Sajeed, where execution of Exhibit A7 is fully admitted). RFA 554/15 & CON. CASES 51 63. After thus admitting Exhibits A7 and A39 Powers of Attorney dated 24.10.2007, the Buyerss plead and assert that they do not operate to automatically revoke the earlier Powers