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

66,643/- was 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

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

66,643/- was 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

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

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

1 (SC) wherein Supreme Court held as under:- “21. A finding of fact may give rise to a substantial question of law, inter alia, in the event the findings are based on no evidence and/or while arriving at the said finding, relevant admissible evidence has not been (2006) 5 SCC 545 taken into consideration or inadmissible evidence has been taken

The Commissioner of Income Tax -1 vs. R.S. Sudheesh

disallowed as 'capital loss' and the advances amounting to Rs.2,32,93,575/- given for acquisition of revenue items subsequently written off are held as allowable under Section 37 of the Act as 'current expenses'. 2 (1974) 96 ITR 568 (J&K) 3 (1962) 46 ITR 649 (SC) 4 (1967) 66 ITR 710 (SC) I.T.A. No.172/2013 -6- 5.1 The present

Commissioner of Income Tax vs. Agricultural Market Committee

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

disallowed by the Assessing Officer and after verifying the relevant records. Thus, a finding was recorded that the assessee Shivani Gupta 2024.01.19 12:57 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document ITA No.244 of 2011 and ITA No.512 of 2017 4 2024:PHHC:004741-DB had not furnished any inaccurate particulars and the Assessing Officer as well

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

Bench: ABHINAND KUMAR SHAVILI,V RAMASUBRAMANIAN

SECTION 260-A OF THE INCOME TAX ACT, 1961 ARISING OUT OF DATED 26.08.2016 PASSED IN ITA NO.1124/BANG/2014, FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2008-2009 PRAYING TO (A) FORMULATE THE SUBSTANTIAL QUESTIONS OF LAW (B) ALLOW THE APPEAL AND SET ASIDE THE ORDER OF THE TRIBUNAL DATED 26.08.2016 PASSED IN ITA NO. 1124/BANG/2014 (ANNEXURE-H); AND (C) PASS SUCH OTHER

The Director of Income Tax-(Exemptions), vs. Vasavi Academy of Education

Bench: ANIS,SANJAY KUMAR

disallowed and similarly, the rent paid by others have been discarded. Without any basis, it is simply stated that the vehicle was purchased by paying Rs.3,50,000/- from out of the ill gotton money in the hands of the husband of the petitioner. It was contended that the father of the petitioner, who is a retired Central Government employee

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

The Commissioner of Income Tax IV vs. Margadarshi Chit Fund Pvt. Ltd.,

The appeal is dismissed

disallowing expenditure, on surmises and conjenctures without finding any discrepancy in Audited books of account?” While allowed the appeals, it has been observed that all the three authorities had acted on surmises and guess work while sustaining the additions of different amounts. Further the authorities were required to have some material to come to the conclusion that the addition

The Commissoner of Income Tax I , vs. M/s. Alpha Thought Technologies P Ltd.,

In the result, the orders passed by the

Bench: RAMESH RANGANATHAN,M.SATYANARAYANA MURTHY

1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 26TH DAY OF AUGUST 2020 PRESENT THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE ALOK ARADHE AND THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE H.T.NARENDRA PRASAD I.T.A. NO.191 OF 2011 C/W I.T.A. NO.32 OF 2012 I.T.A. NO.191 OF 2011 BETWEEN: M/S. BEST TRADING AND AGENCIES LTD., REP. BY ITS DIRECTOR B.R. GOPALA KRISHNA

Commissioner of Income Tax vs. Agricultural Market Committee

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

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

66,32,670/-. The return was processed under Section 143(1) and was selected for scrutiny and notice under Section 143(2) of the Act was issued. The assessee had taken premises on lease for a period of three years. The assessee claimed expenditure of Rs.89,23,817/- on account of leasehold improvements as revenue expenditure in the computation

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 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

disallowance. He further submits that the interest income has been earned from short-term deposits with Co-operative Banks and Co-operative Societies and is fully exempted u/s 80P(2)(d). The CTT(A), in the subsequent assessment year, i.e., assessment year 1993-94, has allowed the same. The reliance was also placed upon the judgement of Hon'ble Punjab

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

Section 144 of the Income Tax Act was completed on 24.12.2008 by making the following additions:- “(1) During the assessment proceedings, the identity and creditworthiness of the parties subscribed share capital remained unproved and the genuineness of the transaction was also unproved, therefore, the capital of Rs.55,00,000/- was treated as income from undisclosed sources of the assessee

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

66. However, this makes it no easier for the defendants because both the Buyers, when they testified as DW2 and DW3, admitted that the Sale Deeds in their favour, do not contain the particulars of their Identity Cards either; and, to make it worse, DW2 said that the Sub Registrar is a man, when the deeds show