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

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 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-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-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-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

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

Bench: SUJOY PAUL,NAMAVARAPU RAJESHWAR RAO

section 14A read with Rule 8D as under:- Clause Particulars Amount i Expenditure directly related to exempt income Nil Digitally Signed By:PREM MOHAN CHOUDHARY Signing Date:06.12.2023 16:56:58 Signature Not Verified ITA 163/2018 Page 3 of 8 Disallowance of interest expenditure A. Interest expenditure incurred during the year other then (i) above B. Average Value of Investment

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

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

2) of the Act was issued to the assessee. 5. The Assessing Officer passed an order of assessment on 30.11.2007 under Section 143(3) of the Act and disallowed the claim of interest paid to the financial institutions, which was claimed as deduction under Section 57 of the Act to the tune of Rs.12,80,461/- as capital expenditure

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

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

In the result, the appeal fails and is hereby

56,28,132/- even though the same was not claimed in original return and assessing authority has not made any addition in this regard or otherwise whether the Tribunal is right in law in not remitting back the matter back to assessing authority to consider the issue as same was not adjudicated earlier. 2. Whether, on the facts and circumstances

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

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

The appeal stands disposed of

2 of 4 during the relevant previous year 2001-02 was received from investment and deposits of surplus funds which were not immediately required for the purpose of assessee’s business. Under such circumstances, the said income did not fall within the ambit of Section 28 of the Income Tax Act and was assessed under the head “income from other

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

Bench: RAMESH RANGANATHAN,M.SATYANARAYANA MURTHY

56 YEARS, R/AT NO.659, 5TH CROSS, 3RD BLOCK, KORAMANGALA, BANGALORE-560 034. …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. S S NAGANAND., SENIOR COUNSEL A/W SRI. VIJAYKUMAR DESAI., ADVOCATE FOR R1; SRI.M R RAJAGOPAL., SENIOR COUNSEL A/W SRI.B M SHIVAJI., ADVOCATE FOR R2) THIS RFA CROB IS FILED UNDER ORDER 41 RULE 22(2) OF CPC., AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE DATED 13.01.2015 PASSED