Commissioner of IncomeTax-2, vs. Mr. Mustafa Alam Khan,

Appeal is allowed

Bench: SANJAY KUMAR,GUDISEVA SHYAM PRASAD

disallowed and in its place, depreciation of Rs.6,30,864/- is allowed and difference amount of Rs.18,92,500/- is added back to the income declared.” (emphasis supplied) 9 12. It is forthcoming that it has been held that the deduction is required to be made under Section 32(1) of the IT Act. 13. Section

The Commissioner of Income Tax-I vs. M/s Andhra Bank

In the result, the appeal is dismissed

Bench: CHALLA KODANDA RAM,C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY

disallowance under Section 6 14A of the Act made by the assessee to the extent it was rejected was not accepted

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

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-III vs. M/S. SOMA ENTERPRISES LTD

The appeal is disposed off accordingly

Bench: The Hon'Ble Mr. Justice Ravi Malimath

Section 40(a)(ia) of the Act. On the very same reason, an amount of Rs.45,69,998/- was disallowed on account of operation management service charges. 6

The Commissioner of Income Tax [Central] vs. Akula Nageswara Rao

The appeals stand dismissed

Bench: SANJAY KUMAR,GUDISEVA SHYAM PRASAD

disallowed in respect of Barotiwala Unit during the assessment year 2012-13. Accordingly, show cause notice under Section 263 of the Act was issued on 28.02.2016 by the CIT. After considering the reply filed by the assessee, order under Section 263 of the Act was passed by the CIT on 16.03.2016. Aggrieved by the order, the assessee filed an appeal

COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-TDA vs. M/S.IDEA CELLULAR LTD

Bench: SUJOY PAUL,NAMAVARAPU RAJESHWAR RAO

Section 14 A, which was more than the exempt income of Rs.88,83,863/-. The disallowance made by the assessee being reasonable no further disallowance was necessary. 5. The Tribunal, vide impugned order, has upheld the findings recorded by the Commission of Income Tax (Appeals). 6

Commissioner of Income Tax-2, vs. Agricultural Market Committee,

Bench: : The Hon’Ble Justice Surya Prakash Kesarwani & The Hon’Ble Justice Rajarshi Bharadwaj Date : 28Th February 2024. Appearance: Mr. J. P. Khaitan, Senior Advocate Mr. Somak Basu, Advocate … For The Appellant. Mr. Vipul Kundalia, Advocate Mr. Anurag Roy, Advocate Ms. Oindrila Ghosal, Advocate … For The Respondent. 1. Heard Sri J. P. Khaitan, Learned Senior Advocate Assisted By Sri Somak Basu, Learned Counsel For The Appellant Assessee & Vipul Kundalia, Learned Senior Standing Counsel For The Respondent. 2. This Appeal Was Admitted By This Court By Order Dated 19.08.2011 On Four Substantial Questions Of Law. Learned Counsel For The Appellant Has Stated That The Appellant Does Not Want To Press The Substantial

disallowed and could be subjected to tax as income in the hands of the assessee. iii) Section 80M read with Section 80AA of the Act, 1961 provides for deduction @ 60% on the income by way of dividend from a domestic company. Therefore, the entire amount received as dividend was the income from dividend and, as such, deduction under Section

The Principal Commissioner of Income Tax vs. M/s.Midwest Granites Private Limited

Appeal stands dismissed accordingly

Bench: RAMESH RANGANATHAN,KONGARA VIJAYA LAKSHMI

disallowed the claim made under said sections on the basis of material available on record and after application of relevant provisions of the Act? 6

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

Bench: SUJOY PAUL,NAMAVARAPU RAJESHWAR RAO

6. In a series of judgments it has been held that the disallowance under Section 14A of the Act read

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

Bench: CHALLA KODANDA RAM,G.CHANDRAIAH

Section 245(D)(6) of the Income Tax Act, inasmuch as, by June/August 2004, plaintiff had encashed the pay orders totaling to the amount of Rs.30,50,000/-. I have deliberately reproduced the entire Order dated 20.9.2005 (or 27.9.2004) above inasmuch as, the computation being done of amounts; payable for and against the plaintiff; and for and against the defendants

The commissioner of Income Tax-I vs. M/s Bhagyanagar Studios

The appeals are disposed of in the manner indicated above

Bench: RAMESH RANGANATHAN,M.SATYANARAYANA MURTHY

Section 10B was disallowed vide order dated 31.12.2008. 6. Being aggrieved of the assessment order, the assesseee filed an appeal

The Prl Commissioner of Income Tax (Exemptions) vs. Institute of Development and Research in Banking Technology

Bench: ABHINAND KUMAR SHAVILI,V RAMASUBRAMANIAN

6. Subsequently, the AO4 reopened the assessment for the year 2008-09 under Section 147 of the Act on the premise that during the assessment proceedings for A.Y. 2009-10, assessee had claimed exemption in respect of the Nuclear Power Corporation Limited Tax free bonds under Section 10(23G) of the Act and the said Section was omitted by Finance

The Commissioner of Income Tax(Central) vs. M/s.Madhu Enterprises

Bench: The Learned

6. The AO passed an assessment order dated 27.03.2015 under Section 153A read with Section 143(3) of the Act restricting the deduction under Section 54F to ₹30 crores, as against ₹90 crores claimed by the Assessee. 7. The Assessee had deposited the consideration in the capital gains account in two tranches – ₹30 crores on 28.07.2011 and ₹60 crores

Commissioner of Income tAx, vs. Sri Padala Ramakrishna Reddy,

The appeals stand dismissed

Bench: RAMESH RANGANATHAN,M.SATYANARAYANA MURTHY

6. Mr. Jhanwar, counsel for the respondent has taken us to the judgment of the Tribunal and contended that while considering the process which has been undertaken by the assessee, the Tribunal has observed as under: “The various activities carried out by the appellant, are as under:- (i) Firstly, the appellant purchases wood, semi finished material which requires further wood

COMM OF INCOME TAX, HYD vs. M/S. BALAN NATURAL FOOD PRIVATE LTD., HYD

Bench: RAMESH RANGANATHAN,KONGARA VIJAYA LAKSHMI

disallowed the aforesaid amount in terms of Section 14A of the Act. A sum of Rs.3,43,28,658/- being 5% thereof was estimated as expenditure incurred for earning such income. 3. The assessee, thereupon, filed an appeal. The Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) by an order dated 31.05.2011 partly allowed the appeal. Being aggrieved, the revenue as well