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

In the result, the appeal is disposed of

Bench: ANIS,SANJAY KUMAR

1) of the Act for the Assessment Year 2007-08 on 31.10.2007 and declared total income of Rs.40,77,27,150/-. However, no order of assessment was passed under Section 143(3) of the Act. The Assessing Officer issued a notice under Section 148 of the Act on 31.03.2012. The assessee filed the return of income in response

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

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

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

Bench: SUJOY PAUL,NAMAVARAPU RAJESHWAR RAO

1,1975811 72+ 1564803 5,05,76,386 50,642,471 1197581172 1199145975 50,642,471 5,05,76,386 iii Aggregate of Opening and Closing value of Investment (Average Value of Investment) >2% of above as per Rule 8D 1197581172 X 0.5% 5987905 5987905 Total disallowance [ Aggregate of (i), (ii) &(iii) ] 5,65,64,291 Therefore, an amount

PR COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX vs. R SURYANARAYANA

In the result, the appeal filed by the revenue stands

Bench: RAMESH RANGANATHAN,KONGARA VIJAYA LAKSHMI

65,989/- on account of Foreign Trade expenses by ignoring the assessing officer had clearly analysed the foreign travel expenses and allowed the foreign travel expenses which were spent for the business purpose? (ii) Whether on the facts and the circumstances of the case, the Learned Tribunal has erred in law as well as on fact and the impugned order

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-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.69,65,686/- and held this was the reasonable expenditure incurred to earn dividend income of Rs.3,95,439/-. In view of the facts noticed above, the contention of the revenue is rather far-fetched, if not perverse and illogical

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

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. 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

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

1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 1ST DAY OF OCTOBER 2020 PRESENT THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE ALOK ARADHE AND THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE H.T.NARENDRA PRASAD I.T.A. NO.204 OF 2015 BETWEEN: SHRI SRINIVASAN CHANDIRA KUMAR AGED ABOUT 65 YEARS S/O SHRI D. SRINIVASAN 596, 10TH CROSS, 7TH BLOCK JAYANAGAR, BENGALURU-560082. ... APPELLANT

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

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

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

1. At the stage of admission, we have heard out all these Appeals as similar questions of law are involved. 2. The first 7 Appeals are at the instance of the assessee and are directed against order dated June 17, 2010 passed by the Customs, Excise & Service Tax Appellate Tribunal, Ahmedabad ["the Tribunal" for short] in Appeal Nos. E/438, 439/2007