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

Bench: RAMESH RANGANATHAN,KONGARA VIJAYA LAKSHMI

65,73,177/-, which is exempt under various sub-Sections of Section 10 of the Act and disallowed the aforesaid

Commissioner of Income Tax-III, vs. M/s Sree Rayalaseema Green Energy Limited,

Section 14A. The tribunal has held that the aforesaid disallowance was reasonable. The Assessing Officer had disallowed an amount of Rs.69,65

The Commissioner of Income Tax I vs. M/s. Bhagiradha Chemicals AND Industries Ltd.,

The appeal is disposed of

disallow the commission payment made to the said directors and the fresh assessment order u/s143(3) of I.T. Act may be passed accordingly.” (emphasis supplied) 7. On the second issue, the Commissioner of Income Tax referred to the total figure of expenses claimed against the manufacturing unit and the expenses booked against trading activities. In paragraph 5 the Commissioner accepted

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

disallowance made by appellate authority under Section 80JJA of the Act by relying on its earlier order in case of assessee itself when said earlier order has not reached finality and even when the appellate authority rightly rejected said claim as deduction cannot be given in respect of additional wages paid on employment of new workmen during the previous year

Commissioner of Income Tax-III vs. V.Ramachandra Rao

In the result, we do not find any merit in the

Bench: CHALLA KODANDA RAM,G.CHANDRAIAH

65 YEARS S/O SHRI D. SRINIVASAN 596, 10TH CROSS, 7TH BLOCK JAYANAGAR, BENGALURU-560082. ... APPELLANT (BY SRI. B.S. NARASIMHA PRASAD, ADV.,) AND: THE ADDITIONAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX RANGE-7(2) [ERSTWHILE RANGE-4] UNITY BUILDING ANNEXE MISSION ROAD, BANGALORE-560027. ... RESPONDENT (BY SRI. K.V. ARAVIND, ADV.) - - - THIS ITA IS FILED UNDER SECTION 260-A OF I.T. ACT, 1961 ARISING

Commissioner of Income Tax-III., vs. Smt. Chirala Nivedita Reddy

65,77,24,891/-. The return was processed under Section 143(1). It was later selected for ITA 575/2012 Page 2 scrutiny, and notice was served upon the assessee on 17.10.2003 under Section 143(2). During the course of the scrutiny assessment, the assessing officer (AO) framed a detailed questionnaire concerning 18 issues, and asked the assessee to furnish replies

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

65. The AO disallowed the interest paid to IndusInd Bank on the ground that the interest was required to be capitalized under the head of „capital work ITA 210/2003 & connected matters Page 29 of 36 and progress.‟ In fact in AYs 1992-93, 1993-94 and 1994-95, the Assessee itself had capitalised interest in the capital work and progress

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

Appeals of the Revenue are dismissed

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

65. The AO disallowed the interest paid to IndusInd Bank on the ground that the interest was required to be capitalized under the head of „capital work ITA 210/2003 & connected matters Page 29 of 36 and progress.‟ In fact in AYs 1992-93, 1993-94 and 1994-95, the Assessee itself had capitalised interest in the capital work and progress

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

65(B) of the Indian Evidence Act was not annexed to the call detail records, and no reliance could have been placed upon the call detail records. She relied upon the judgments of Musheer Khan @ Badshah Khan & Anr vs State Of M.P, 2010 (2) SCC 748, D. Gopalakrishnan vs Sadanand Naik & Ors, 2005(1) SCC 85 and Malkhan Singh

The Director of Income Tax, (Exemptions) vs. Royal Education Society

In the result, the appeal is disposed of

Bench: ANIS,SANJAY KUMAR

65,052/-. 3. The Assessing Officer by an order dated 30.03.2013 passed under Section 143(3) read with Section 147 of the Act determined the income of the assessee at Rs.51,71,70,670/- and made following additions: (a) disallowance

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/-.

65,660/-. The return was processed under Section 143 (1) (a) of the Act on 28.09.1999 without any adjustments. Then the assessee’s case was selected for scrutiny by issue of a notice under Section 143(2) dated 28.09.1999. The notice was served on the assessee on 11.10.1999. Subsequently, notices under Section 142 (1) and 143 (2) were issued

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

Bench: RAMESH RANGANATHAN,M.SATYANARAYANA MURTHY

65 and 104/2010 are rejected, as there arose the aforesaid question alone. 6. ITA No.23/2010 raises the following question for the assessment year 1999-2000:- “(1) Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and also in the light of the amendment by the Finance Act (2) of 2009 which had introduced Explanation 'g' below Section 115JA

M/s. PLL-PCL Joint Venture vs. The Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax,

65,416/- taken on furnace oil used for the generation of electricity supplied to the Plastic Division from January, 2004 to May, 2004 under protest and under intimation to the office of the Deputy Commissioner of Central Excise. 5.8. The appellant further reversed under protest the cenvat credit from time to time from the period of June 2004 to September

COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-II vs. M/S.TRANSPORT CORPORATION OF INDIA

In the result, we set aside the assessment orders, except to

Bench: P.SAM KOSHY,LAXMI NARAYANA ALISHETTY

Section 132 of the Income-tax Act, in the premises of the assessee on 6.1.2009. After completing all procedural formalities, assessments for the years 2003-04 to 2009-10 were reopened. However, these appeals are concerning the assessment years 2006-07 to 2009-10 only. Accordingly, the assessments were completed by Annexure A orders where, rejecting the books of accounts

The Pr. Commissioner of Income Tax-2 vs. Sri Venkatesh Granites Pvt. Ltd.

Accordingly, the appeal fails and is dismissed

Bench: : The Hon’Ble Justice T.S. Sivagnanam & The Hon’Ble Justice Hiranmay Bhattacharyya Date : 9Th January, 2023 Appearance : Mr. Prithu Dudhoria, Adv. ….For Appellant Mr. Avra Majumder, Adv. Mr. Binayak Gupta, Adv. Mr. Suman Bhowmick, Adv. …For The Respondent The Court : We Have Heard Mr. Prithu Dudhoria, Learned Standing Counsel Appearing For The Appellant & Mr. Avra Majumder, Learned Counsel Appearing For The Respondent/Assessee. Though There Is No Satisfactory Explanation For The Inordinate Delay Of 1018 Days In Filing The Appeal, Since We Are Inclined To Take Up The Main Appeal Itself For Consideration & To Ascertain As To Whether Any Substantial Question Of Law Arises For Consideration, We Exercise Discretion & Condone The Delay In Filing The Appeal. For Such Reason, The Application Being Ia No.:Ga/1/2022 Is Allowed.

Section 260A of the Income Tax Act (the Act, for brevity) is directed against the order dated 6th September, 2019 passed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, `C’ Bench, Kolkata (Tribunal) in I.T.A No.1787/Kol/2013 for the assessment year 2009-10. The revenue has raised the following substantial questions of law for consideration :- “a) Whether on the facts

Principal Commissioner of Income Tax-2 vs. M/s Indur Green Power Private Limited

In the result, all the appeals fail and are hereby

Bench: RAMESH RANGANATHAN,M.SATYANARAYANA MURTHY

Section 2(15) of the Act?. 44. We are dealing with a taxing statute. The intention of the legislature in a taxation statute is to be gathered from the language of the provisions particularly where the language is plain and unambiguous. In a Taxing Act, it is not possible to assume any intention or the governing purpose of the statute

The Commissioner of Income Tax -III vs. Sri T.C. Reddy

The appeal stands dismissed

65,000/- and Sh. Surendra Kedia at Rs.1,45,000/-. The assessee was asked to file the justification of these expenses as these are payments to related parties u/s 40(a)(2)(b). vide reply dated 30.12.2009, the assessee has filed bills of these persons. These bills show that sales commission against sales of plot have been paid

The Pr.Commissioner of Income Tax (Central) vs. M/s Vaishnavi Educational Society

In the result, this Cross Objection is allowed and the suit is

Bench: RAMESH RANGANATHAN,M.SATYANARAYANA MURTHY

65. Still further, the depositions of DW2 and DW3 - the Buyers - as also that of DW1 - Sri.Shajideen show that one of the Identity Cards of the Buyers, as required under Rule 72A of the Kerala Stamp Rules, had been presented before the SRO at the time when the Sale Deeds were registered. In fact, Sri.Shajideen, as DW1, admits in page