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 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

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

In the result, the appeal is disposed of

Bench: ANIS,SANJAY KUMAR

1) of the Act for the Assessment Year 2007-08 on 31.10.2007 and declared total income of Rs.40,77,27,150/-. However, no order of assessment was passed under Section 143(3) of the Act. The Assessing Officer issued a notice under Section 148 of the Act on 31.03.2012. The assessee filed the return of income in response

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

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

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

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

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

Bench: SUJOY PAUL,NAMAVARAPU RAJESHWAR RAO

Section 36(1)(iii)]. The question, Digitally Signed By:PREM MOHAN CHOUDHARY Signing Date:06.12.2023 16:56:58 Signature Not Verified ITA 163/2018 Page 8 of 8 as proposed, is confined to the disallowance

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

Bench: RAMESH RANGANATHAN,M.SATYANARAYANA MURTHY

disallowance of Rs.27,25,570/- on profit from sale of spare parts which was excluded from 10A claim as it did not pertain to profit earned from export of manufactured item which cannot become part of 10A income and said activity was only trading activity and not manufacturing activity?” 3. The substantial question of law No.2 is covered

THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX vs. SRI PINNAMANENI PARANDHAMAIAH

In the result, the appeal is allowed

Bench: C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY,T.AMARNATH GOUD

disallowing the expenditure incurred wholly and exclusively for the purposes of the business of complex commercial letting out services and whether the findings of the Appellate Tribunal in this regard are perverse? (4) Whether on the facts and circumstances of the case, the findings of 4 the authorities below that, receipts on account of sale of software technical services being

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

Bench: J SREENIVAS RAO,ALOK ARADHE

1,76,40,000 to tax under the head “income from other sources” with the result that the deductions under Section 24 claimed by the assessee on the footing that the rental income was assessable under the head “income from house property” stood disallowed. The net result was an addition of `52,92,000/-. 3. The assessee filed an appeal

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

Kuchipudi Krishna Kishore vs. The DCIT

Accordingly the appeals deserves to be allowed by setting aside the impugned

Bench: P.SAM KOSHY,N.TUKARAMJI

1,56,673t- for AY-2001-02 and Rs.13,22,580/- for Ay-200203 for which sought exemption from the income tax. 5. The Revenue/Assessment Officer in the assessment order dated 31 .12.2004 rejected the claim for exemption by observing that the borrowed amount was invested in the shares but not expended wholly and exclusively for the purpose of earning

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

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