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 IV vs. M/s. Nav Bharat Enterprises Limited

58,039/- on software imported even though the assessing authority had rightly disallowed the expenditure under section 40(a)(i) of IT Act as the assessee

The Commissioner of Income Tax - Central vs. M/s. Himagiri Biotech Pvt. Ltd.,

disallowance can be made.” 9. It is argued by the revenue that ITAT has failed to appreciate that for the claim of interest, it is necessary that, firstly, the money ITA Nos.512/2013, 516/2013, 517/2013, 518/2013, 519/2013 & 526/2013 Page 10 must have been borrowed by the assessee, secondly, it must have been borrowed for the purpose of business and thirdly

M/s. CCL Products (India)Ltd. vs. The Commissioner of Income Tax I

In the result, the appeal is disposed of

Bench: The Authorities & There Was No Need To Remand The Matter Under The Facts & Circumstances Of The Case?

58,480/- for the Assessment year 2006-07 under the head of income from business. The Assessing Officer vide order dated 27.11.2008 determined total income of the assessee at Rs.53,50,291/- by making an addition of Rs.27,84,324/- , by disallowing a sum of Rs.22,84,324 under the provisions of Section

The Commissioner of Income Tax (Exemptions0 vs. Kalinga Cultural Trust

In the result, we do not find any

Bench: ANIS,SANJAY KUMAR

disallowed the assessee's claim for deduction under Section 10B of the Act. 5. The Assessing Officer inter alia held that assessee is entitled to deduction under Section 10B of the Act only after verification and the contention of the assessee that old machinery from FFIPL was transferred to it only in April 2007 does not deserve acceptance

Principal Commissioner of Income Tax-5 vs. M/s. VBC Industries Limited

In the result, we do not find any

Bench: RAMESH RANGANATHAN,M.SATYANARAYANA MURTHY

disallowed the assessee's claim for deduction under Section 10B of the Act. 5. The Assessing Officer inter alia held that assessee is entitled to deduction under Section 10B of the Act only after verification and the contention of the assessee that old machinery from FFIPL was transferred to it only in April 2007 does not deserve acceptance

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-III vs. M/s.Vishwas Investments Pvt.Ltd,

Bench: GODA RAGHURAM,M.S.RAMACHANDRA RAO

disallowance of the expenditure payment of which, though required deduction of tax at source, has not been made, would be confined only to those cases where the amount remains payable till the end of the previous years or would include all amounts which became payable during the entire previous year? (ii) Whether in the facts and circumstances of the case

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

disallowed. These were put during the cross-examination of Bankey, PW 30. They are: Q. Did you state to the investigating officer that the gang rolled the dead bodies of Nathi, Saktu and Bharat Singh and scrutinized them, and did you tell him that the face of Asa Ram resembled that of the deceased Bharat Singh? Q. Did you state

The Commissioner of income Tax-II vs. M/s.Ideal Industrial Explosives Ltd

Bench: RAMESH RANGANATHAN,M.SATYANARAYANA MURTHY

58, 65, 81, 82, 85, 88, 97, 100 and 104 of 2010 J U D G M E N T K.Vinod Chandran, J. The above appeals are all by the Department challenging various orders of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal. For the assessment year 1999- 2000, there are two appeals filed - ITA Nos.3/2010 and 23/2010 - arising from orders under Sections

Commissioner of Income Tax, vs. M/s Polisetty Somasundaram,

58,86,441/-. As such interest of Rs.19,06,373/- worked out @12% on interest free advances was disallowed. (7) The assessee had debited expenses on account of charity and donation of Rs.66,203/- and gift expenses of Rs.42,530/-, totaling to Rs.1,08,733/-, which were disallowed being not admissible as per provisions

The Commissioner of Income tax vs. M/s. Nirmala Constructions

The appeal stands dismissed

Bench: Cit(A) After The Amendment U/S. 80P(2)(A)(Iii) Of The Act? Iv) Whether, In The Facts & Circumstances Of The Case The

Section 80P(2)(a)(iv) and allow the deduction acording to law. 7. The Id. A.R. Submits that the assessee has received interest from other Co-operative Societies/Banks and after deduction the interest paid to State Government on loan, the net amount of interest amounting to Rs. 58,84,711.46 was shown as interest income and claimed as deduction

Commissioner of Incoem Tax- 2, vs. M/s. Erythor Pharma Pvt. Ltd.,

In the result, the impugned order dated

Bench: RAMESH RANGANATHAN,M.SATYANARAYANA MURTHY

58 YEARS S/O SRI. LATE SRI. Y.S. ADINARAYANA SETTY R/AT. SUDHAMA HOUSE CHICKPET, BANGALORE-560053. ... APPELLANT (By Sri. S. PARTHASARATHI, ADV.) AND: THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX CIRCLE 5(1), BANGALORE. ... RESPONDENT (By Sri. K.V. ARAVIND, ADV.) - - - THIS I.T.A. IS FILED UNDER SECTION 260-A OF I.T. ACT, 1961 ARISING OUT OF ORDER DATED 20-4-2010 PASSED

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

Section 24 of the Act. 43. During the assessment proceedings, in its reply dated 15th December 1997 to the query raised by the AO, the Assessee pointed out that there is nothing in law which prohibited the leasing out of stock and trade. It relied on the decision in CIT v. Chagan Das and Company 54 ITR 17 where

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

Appeals of the Revenue are dismissed

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

Section 24 of the Act. 43. During the assessment proceedings, in its reply dated 15th December 1997 to the query raised by the AO, the Assessee pointed out that there is nothing in law which prohibited the leasing out of stock and trade. It relied on the decision in CIT v. Chagan Das and Company 54 ITR 17 where

COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX vs. CHEBROLU LAKSHMI SESHA KUMARI

Bench: C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY,M.S.K.JAISWAL

58,421/- as a business loss, in spite of the dispute, pending in arbitration proceedings, not attaining finality in the accounting year relevant to the assessment year?” 2. The facts are not in dispute. The respondent was in the business of purchase and sale of new brass vessels. During the financial year 1999-2000, she entered into an agreement with

Commissioner of Income Tax vs. Ms. B.krishna Murthy AND Others

In the result, for the above reasons, we set aside the orders

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

58, 61, 64, 76, 77, 81, 82, 83, 87, 88, 106, 108, 118, 119, 126, 128, 129, 131, 137, 141, 143, 147, 151, 167, 169, 170, 171, 172, 176, 179, 183, 185, 187, 188, 193, 194, 197, 206, 208, 210, 227, 240, 253, 259, 272, 278, 294, 302, 304, 305, 309, 314, 333 of 2003; INCOME TAX TRIBUNAL APPEAL Nos.74

The Commissioner of Income tax vs. M/s.V.Satyanrayana AND Others

In the result, for the above reasons, we set aside the orders

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

58, 61, 64, 76, 77, 81, 82, 83, 87, 88, 106, 108, 118, 119, 126, 128, 129, 131, 137, 141, 143, 147, 151, 167, 169, 170, 171, 172, 176, 179, 183, 185, 187, 188, 193, 194, 197, 206, 208, 210, 227, 240, 253, 259, 272, 278, 294, 302, 304, 305, 309, 314, 333 of 2003; INCOME TAX TRIBUNAL APPEAL Nos.74