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

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 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

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.48,56,224/- from the lease rental charges for the assessment year 1998-99. 3.1 During the assessment year

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

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-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

iii) the party making the application was not given proper notice of the appointment of an arbitrator or of the arbitral proceedings or was otherwise unable to present his case; or (iv) the arbitral award deals with a dispute not contemplated by or not falling within the terms of the submission to arbitration, or it contains decisions on matters beyond

THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX vs. SRI PINNAMANENI PARANDHAMAIAH

In the result, the appeal is allowed

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

iii) PASS SUCH OTHER SUITABLE ORDERS AS THIS HON'BLE COURT DEEMS FIT TO GRANT IN THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE AND EQUITY. THIS I.T.A. COMING ON FOR FINAL HEARING, THIS DAY, ALOK ARADHE J., DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: JUDGMENT This appeal under Section 260A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred

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

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

Bench: SUJOY PAUL,NAMAVARAPU RAJESHWAR RAO

2% of above as per Rule 8D 1197581172 X 0.5% 5987905 5987905 Total disallowance [ Aggregate of (i), (ii) &(iii) ] 5,65,64,291 Therefore, an amount of Rs 5,65,64,291/- have to be disallowed u/s 14A read with Rule 8D of I.T.Rules, 1962 and added to the total income of the assessee. However, total expenses debited

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

Kuchipudi Krishna Kishore vs. The DCIT

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

Bench: P.SAM KOSHY,N.TUKARAMJI

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

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

iii) and Section 37(1) of the Income Tax Act, 1961?” 3. Despite full disclosure of facts regarding loans given by the assessee to its subsidiary companies and source of funds, supported by documentary evidences, the assessing officer made addition in the income of the assessee on the presumption that the loan was given out of the borrowed capital

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

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

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