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

Section 36 (1) (iii) regarding advance of borrowed funds, to its sister concern?; (2) Did the ITAT fall into error in holding that the sum of `25,04,385/- brought to tax by the AO on the interest free deposit of ` 1,75,50,000/- was not sustainable?; (3) Is the ITAT’s order- that the assessee’s revised

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

Appeal is allowed

Bench: SANJAY KUMAR,GUDISEVA SHYAM PRASAD

iii. the Tribunal was right in sustaining the 1st Respondent’s action in disallowing the claim for deduction under Section 80JJAA of the Act in respect of permanent employees solely on the ground that they were employed for less than 300 days during the relevant previous years despite the fact that they had been employed for periods much longer than

Commissioner of Income tax-V, vs. M/s. INTRACK INC,

III to section 194C; (v) “rent” shall have the same meaning as in clause (i) to the Explanation to section 194-I; (vi) “royalty” shall have the same meaning as in Explanation 2 to clause (vi) of sub- section (1) of section 9; By Finance Act, 2010, the said provision is substituted by the following: Substituted by the Finance

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

section 271(1)(c) by Finance Act. 2002, w.e.f. 1st April 2003, penalty for concealment of income could not be levied in the absence of any positive income. The head note of the aforesaid judgment is reproduced herein below. “Penalty under s. (1) (c)- concealment assessment at loss provisions of s. 271 (1(c) (iii) prior to amendment by Finance

THE PRL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-II, VISAKHAPATNAM vs. L SURYAKANTHAM, VISAKHAPATNAM

In the result, the appeal fails and is hereby dismissed

Bench: RAMESH RANGANATHAN,KONGARA VIJAYA LAKSHMI

iii) to the extent of Rs.20,51,175/- and disallowance of Rs.74,08,964/- under the provisions of Section 80JJAA of the Act were proposed. The 5 assessee thereupon filed objections before the Dispute Resolution Panel contesting all the additions. The Dispute Resolution Panel, however rejected the objections preferred by the assessee. The assessee thereupon filed an appeal before

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

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-III, vs. M/S Sarada Projects Pvt. Ltd,

Appeals stand dismissed accordingly

disallowance made by the AO under section 36(1)(iii) of the IT Act. “ 5.2 Similarly in the case of Raghuvir Synthetics Ltd (supra), this Court has held as under: “9. We may refer to the judgment of Apex Court at this stage given in case of S.A.Builders Ltd. v. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) reported in 288 ITR 1

COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, vs. M/S G.R.K.PRASAD AND OTHERS

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

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

6], the Supreme Court was required to consider whether the expression ‘assessment order’ in Section 35 of the 1922 Act includes an order made under Section 23A which authorized the Income Tax officer to levy super tax at specified rates. Referring to Khemchand Ramdas as approved in C.A.Abraham, the Supreme Court held that, “the word ‘assessment’ is capable of bearing

The commissioner of Income Tax vs. M/s.M.Narayana Choudary and Others

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

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

6], the Supreme Court was required to consider whether the expression ‘assessment order’ in Section 35 of the 1922 Act includes an order made under Section 23A which authorized the Income Tax officer to levy super tax at specified rates. Referring to Khemchand Ramdas as approved in C.A.Abraham, the Supreme Court held that, “the word ‘assessment’ is capable of bearing

The Commissioner of Income Tax vs. M/s.G.V.Krishna Reddy AND Others

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

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

6], the Supreme Court was required to consider whether the expression ‘assessment order’ in Section 35 of the 1922 Act includes an order made under Section 23A which authorized the Income Tax officer to levy super tax at specified rates. Referring to Khemchand Ramdas as approved in C.A.Abraham, the Supreme Court held that, “the word ‘assessment’ is capable of bearing

Commissioner of Income Tax, vs. M/s Y.Ramakrishna and Others

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

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

6], the Supreme Court was required to consider whether the expression ‘assessment order’ in Section 35 of the 1922 Act includes an order made under Section 23A which authorized the Income Tax officer to levy super tax at specified rates. Referring to Khemchand Ramdas as approved in C.A.Abraham, the Supreme Court held that, “the word ‘assessment’ is capable of bearing

COMMISSISONER OF I.T. RAJAHMUNDRY vs. M/S.Y RAMAKRISHNA AND OTHERS

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

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

6], the Supreme Court was required to consider whether the expression ‘assessment order’ in Section 35 of the 1922 Act includes an order made under Section 23A which authorized the Income Tax officer to levy super tax at specified rates. Referring to Khemchand Ramdas as approved in C.A.Abraham, the Supreme Court held that, “the word ‘assessment’ is capable of bearing

The Commissioner of Income Tax vs. M/s GRK Prasad AND others

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

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

6], the Supreme Court was required to consider whether the expression ‘assessment order’ in Section 35 of the 1922 Act includes an order made under Section 23A which authorized the Income Tax officer to levy super tax at specified rates. Referring to Khemchand Ramdas as approved in C.A.Abraham, the Supreme Court held that, “the word ‘assessment’ is capable of bearing

The Commissioner of Income Tax-II vs. m/S.M.Ventakteswara Rao AND Others

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

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

6], the Supreme Court was required to consider whether the expression ‘assessment order’ in Section 35 of the 1922 Act includes an order made under Section 23A which authorized the Income Tax officer to levy super tax at specified rates. Referring to Khemchand Ramdas as approved in C.A.Abraham, the Supreme Court held that, “the word ‘assessment’ is capable of bearing

The Commissioner of income tax, vs. M/s.Y.Ramulu and Others

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

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

6], the Supreme Court was required to consider whether the expression ‘assessment order’ in Section 35 of the 1922 Act includes an order made under Section 23A which authorized the Income Tax officer to levy super tax at specified rates. Referring to Khemchand Ramdas as approved in C.A.Abraham, the Supreme Court held that, “the word ‘assessment’ is capable of bearing