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

Bench: P.SAM KOSHY,NARSING RAO NANDIKONDA

57,4 provisions of Section 8OJA(8) and 1961. He further submitted that that the power plants were set uP the APSEB has granted sanction o Consumption. Since the main obj plant is for captive. consumP disallowed

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

The appeal is dismissed

Bench: P.SAM KOSHY,NARSING RAO NANDIKONDA

57,4U,99'2 l- by invoking the provisions of Section 80-IA(8) ar.rd Section 8O- IA(10) of the Act, 1961 and also observed that tlre Porver Plants, which wer: set up are only for Captive Consurnption and that the APSEB has granted sanction only for the purpose of Captive Consumpt on. Since the main objective for setr

Commissioner of Income Tax vs. Dr. T.Ravi Kumar

The appeal is disposed of

disallow the deduction as claimed by the assessee under Section 80IB(10) of the Act and to carry out the assessment 5 afresh in accordance with law after affording an opportunity of hearing to the assessee. 3. Being aggrieved, the assessee filed an appeal before the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Tribunal’, for short). The Tribunal

The Commissioner of Income Tax vs. M/s Kaveri Bar AND Restaurant,

Bench: ABHINAND KUMAR SHAVILI,V RAMASUBRAMANIAN

disallowance causing alleged escapement of income. Mr. Khaitan, learned senior counsel appearing for the assessee/petitioner relies on a decision of this Court in the case of Calcutta Club Ltd. vs. Income-Tax Officer and Ors. reported in (2020) 426 ITR 157 (Cal) particularly paragraph 30 of the said judgment which is quoted hereunder : “30. Considering the submission of the parties

Commissioner of Income Tax-1 vs. M/s. A.S. Raja Sons Enterprises (P) Ltd.,

Bench: 31.3.2000 I.E. The End Of The Relevant Accounting Year Even Though The Assessee Has Already Incurred Liability Of Excise Duty Of A Much Higher Value?

disallowance of Rs.3,57,51,194/- in respect of Sales Tax Recoverable account, under Section 43B of the Income Tax Act? iv. Has not the ITAT

COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-II vs. GLAND PHARMA LTD.,

In the result, the appeal (ITAT/96/2017) fails and stands

Bench: P.SAM KOSHY,NARSING RAO NANDIKONDA

Section 43B of Income Tax Act, 1961 on account of provision for leave encashment written back and Rs.256.32 lacs on account of foreign exchange fluctuation, a contingent liability and its purported finding in this regard are arbitrary, unreasonable and perverse? b) Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case the Learned Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, “B” Bench

Commissioner of Income Tax, vs. Dr. T.Ravi Kumar,

Bench: : The Hon’Ble Justice Surya Prakash Kesarwani & The Hon’Ble Justice Rajarshi Bharadwaj Date : 10Th April, 2024. Appearance: Mr. J. P. Khaitan, Senior Advocate Mr. Sanjay Bhowmick, Advocate Ms. Swapna Das, Advocate … For The Appellant. Ms. Smita Das De, Advocate … For The Respondent. 1. Heard Sri J. P. Khaitan, Learned Senior Advocate Assisted By Sri Sanjay Bhowmick, Learned Counsel For The Appellant/Assessee & Ms. Smita Das De, Learned Senior Standing Counsel For The Respondent. 2. The Assessment Years Involved In The Present Appeal Are Assessment Year 1999-2000 & Assessment Year 2000-01. By Order Dated 16.08.2012, This Appeal Was Admitted On The Following Substantial Questions Of Law :-

57,59,010/-.under the head “profits and gains of business or profession”. He filed a revised return on 30.01.2002 disclosing the same amount of income under the head “house property” and loss under the head “business or profession”, but the loss carried forward was shown to be Rs.10,44,04,602/-. He also filed a letter dated

The Commissioner of Income Tax, vs. M/s. K.C.P.Limited

In the result, the appeal fails and is hereby dismissed

disallowed. The assessee thereupon preferred an appeal before the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), who by an order dated 22.07.2010 dismissed the appeal preferred by the assessee. The assessee thereupon filed an appeal before the Tribunal. The Tribunal, by an order dated 15.07.2011, inter alia held that reopening of the assessment under Section 147 read with Section

The Commissioner of Income Tax [Central] vs. M/s.GVPR Engineers Ltd

The appeal is dismissed

Bench: RAMESH RANGANATHAN,M.SATYANARAYANA MURTHY

Sections 36(l)(iii), 37(1) and 57(iii) of the said Act. 5. Being aggrieved by the said disallowance

Commissioner of Income Tax vs. Agricultural Market Committee

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

57 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document ITA No.244 of 2011 and ITA No.512 of 2017 3 2024:PHHC:004741-DB Act and under Section 142(1) dated 21.05.2009 were issued and served and the authorized representatives accordingly attended the proceedings and produced the books of accounts. The assessment was then framed under Section

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

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

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. For the appellants : Mr. Vishal

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

Bench: RAMESH RANGANATHAN,M.SATYANARAYANA MURTHY

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. For the appellants : Mr. Vishal

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

Bench: RAMESH RANGANATHAN,M.SATYANARAYANA MURTHY

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. For the appellants : Mr. Vishal

Commissioner of Income Tax-I vs. Agricultural Market Committee

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

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. For the appellants : Mr. Vishal

The Pr. Commissioner of Income vs. Shri. Vishnu Mohan Reddy Chintapally

Appeal is disposed of

Bench: J SREENIVAS RAO,ALOK ARADHE

Sections 143(2) and 142(1) of the Act, along with a questionnaire, were issued on 05.07.2016 and duly served on 08.07.2016. Digitally Signed By:RAM KUMAR Signing Date:10.02.2025 14:40:57 Signature Not Verified ITA No.113/2024 Page 4 of 8 10. The assessment order dated 20.12.2016 passed in the name of the Firm records that in response

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

sections can be found only when the facts and questions are before the court. But we are of the opinion that relevant and material omissions amount to vital contradictions, which can be established by cross- examination and confronting the witness with his previous statement. xxxxxxxx 59. This brings us to the consideration of the questions, which were asked and disallowed

Commissioner of Income Tax -II vs. M/S Sri Ramanjaneya Poultry Farm Pvt., Ltd.,

Bench: CHALLA KODANDA RAM,G.CHANDRAIAH

57,720.00 Rs.12,12,042.00 u/S 143(3) 2001-2001 8,30,476.00 30,105.00 Rs. 8,60,581.00 u/S 143(a)(a) 2003-04 2,04,197.00 15,310.00 Rs. 2,19,507.00 ----------------- (A) TOTAL OUTSTANDING DEMAND Rs. 90,67,274.00 ----------------- CS(OS) No.713/2006 Page 10 of 14 (B) Amount paid by the assessee:- Sl.No. Amount Date of Payment

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