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

Bench: J SREENIVAS RAO,ALOK ARADHE

56(2)(iii) were applicable and that the letting out of the machinery, ITA 319/2012 Page 3 of 9 plant and furniture and the letting out of buildings were inseparable and therefore the rental income was chargeable to tax under the residual head. According to him, it was the intention of the parties that the letting should be a composite

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

The appeal of the assessee is allowed

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

56,000/- Reserve and Surpluses of Rs.1,10,13,825/- totalling to Rs.7,12,19,825 - Rs.3,11,22,866/-) as on 31.3.2006. 12. It is evident from record that the amount of Rs.3,11,22,866/- includes sundry debtors of Rs.42,01,115/- duly accounted in the sundry debtors of Rs.2,53,03,064/- and Rs.49

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

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

In the result, the appeal fails and is hereby

disallowance under Section 14A of the Act. The assessee thereupon filed an appeal before the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), who by an order dated 03.07.2006 partly allowed the appeal preferred by the assessee. The assessee as well as the revenue approached the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal by filing appeals. The Tribunal, 5 by an order dated 17.05.2013 partly allowed

Commissioner of Income Tax-II, vs. M/S The A.P.Mahesh 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

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

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 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 Commissiosner of Income Tax-III vs. M/s. SOL Pharmaceuticals Limited

The appeal stands disposed of

56 of the Income Tax Act.” The Assessing Officer also found that the deduction under Section 36(1) (viii) claimed by the assessee was not allowable because of the fact that the interest, in respect of which such deduction was claimed, was not derived from the business of providing long term finance by the assessee, though the assessee was engaged

The Commissioner of Income Tax-II vs. M/s.Pact Securities AND Financial Services Ltd

Bench: The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals), The Assessees Had Called In Question The Orders Of Assessing Officer (For Short ‘The A.O.’), Who, While Completing The Assessment For The Relevant Assessment Years Disallowed The Deduction Of The “Lease Equalization” Charges From The Lease Rental Income. The Disallowed Amounts By The Cit (Appeals) In These Appeals Are Of Rs.48,56,224/-, Rs,44,18,245/- & Rs.13,16,123/-.

Section 142 (1) and 143 (2) were issued, in response to which, Chartered Accountant of the assessee appeared before the A.O. and furnished details called for. The assessment was then completed and the A.O. disallowed the lease equalization charges of Rs.48,56

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

56. The AO, however, did not agree and disallowed Rs.41,84,947 as being in excess and unreasonable and valued back for the income of Assessee. In appeal, the CIT(A) reversed the AO on the ground that it is not for the AO to determine the reasonableness or otherwise of the expenditure. In the further appeal by the Revenue

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

Appeals of the Revenue are dismissed

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

56. The AO, however, did not agree and disallowed Rs.41,84,947 as being in excess and unreasonable and valued back for the income of Assessee. In appeal, the CIT(A) reversed the AO on the ground that it is not for the AO to determine the reasonableness or otherwise of the expenditure. In the further appeal by the Revenue

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

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

56 of 2008, 57 of 2008, 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

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

Bench: RAMESH RANGANATHAN,M.SATYANARAYANA MURTHY

56 of 2008, 57 of 2008, 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

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

Bench: RAMESH RANGANATHAN,M.SATYANARAYANA MURTHY

56 of 2008, 57 of 2008, 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

Commissioner of Income Tax-I vs. Agricultural Market Committee

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

56 of 2008, 57 of 2008, 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

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

disallowed. It was observed: “13.. …… The procedure prescribed is that, if it is intended to contradict a witness by the writing, his attention must, before the writing can be proved, be called to those parts of it which are to be used for the purpose of contradicting him. The proviso to Section 162 of the Code of Criminal Procedure

The Director of Income Tax, (Exemptions) vs. Royal Education Society

In the result, the appeal is disposed of

Bench: ANIS,SANJAY KUMAR

56,61,835/-. In the return of income, the 5 assessee made an additional claim on account of loss on sale of securities to the extent of Rs.8,28,65,052/-. 3. The Assessing Officer by an order dated 30.03.2013 passed under Section 143(3) read with Section 147 of the Act determined the income of the assessee at Rs.51