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

The appeal is disposed of

67,744 60%:40% Majorly on sales 2 Directors Remuneratio n 6,462,600 4,253,820 2208780 65%:35% Strictly on sales 3 Insurance Exps 418,805 336,643 82,162 80%:20% On Insuranc e one on Import of goods 4 Printing & Stationery 2,265,717 1,586,002 679,715 70%:30% Majorly on sales 5 Travelling

The Commissioner of Income Tax-IV vs. M/s Planet Online Pvt Ltd

Bench: Us Challenging Order Dated 17.04.2013, Passed By The Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Chandigarh Bench 'B'. Chandigarh (Hereinafter Referred To As 'The

67,894/- made under Section 14A read with Rule 8D, on account of interest on loans, on investments earning tax free income in the form of dividend. ii) Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law the Hon'ble Income Tax Appellate Tribunal was justified in relying on the decision of jurisdictional High Court

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

PRL COMM OF INCOME TAX-2, HYDERABAD vs. M/S NUZIVIDU SWATHI COASTAL CONSORTIUM, HYDERABAD

In the result, the appeal is disposed of

Bench: M.GANGA RAO,RAMESH RANGANATHAN

1)(vii) of the Act and was eligible for deduction under the aforesaid Section. Alternatively, it is submitted that the claim of the assessee for deduction under Section 37 of the Act was not examined by the authorities. It is also submitted that while dealing with the issue relating to Section 14A of the Act, the Commissioner of Income

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

1 (2019) 419 ITR 100 I.T.A. No.172/2013 -5- The Assessing Officer treated the claim of Rs.28,67,407/- as capital loss and disallowed the claim. As regards advances given for acquisition of Revenue items amounting to Rs.2,32,93,575/- the Assessing Officer held that the claim is not allowable under Section

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

Bench: CHALLA KODANDA RAM,G.CHANDRAIAH

67,264 Rs.3,49,24,636.00 Interest U/s 244-A Rs.1,78,94,256.00 TOTAL REFUND DUE TO THE ASSESSEE Rs.5,28,18,892.00 The above amount is calculated as per the information available in the records and subject to the verification of the payment made by the assessee. CS(OS) No.713/2006 Page 11 of 14 Sd/- (Sanjay Gosain) Income

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

Bench: ABHINAND KUMAR SHAVILI,V RAMASUBRAMANIAN

1, 2007. 3 Assessment Year 4 Assessing Officer I.T.A No.71/2017 C/W I.T.A No.785/2017 7 7. On consideration of assessee's reply to the notice under Section 148 of the Act, the AO, vide order dated 19.12.2013 disallowed the claim made under Section 10(23G) of the Act. In addition, the Assessing Officer also proceeded to bring to tax Rs.5

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

1 SCC 43 (paragraphs 12-19) settling the law on the question i.e. with respect to computation of deduction under Section 80M, was not noticed by the co-ordinate Benches. Thus, both the aforesaid judgments of this Court are per inquirium. The Constitution Bench of Hon'ble Supreme Court holds the field. The view taken by the ITAT

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

67. According to the AO, given that the aggregate interest burden was Rs.10 crores up to 31st March in the relevant year, the Assessee would get only 1 lac per acre, the interest was not incurred for the purposes of the Assessee‟s own business but to benefit associate companies. The case of the Assessee was that as long

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

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

Appeals of the Revenue are dismissed

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

67. According to the AO, given that the aggregate interest burden was Rs.10 crores up to 31st March in the relevant year, the Assessee would get only 1 lac per acre, the interest was not incurred for the purposes of the Assessee‟s own business but to benefit associate companies. The case of the Assessee was that as long

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), therefore, the submission of the assessee that Section 115JB is not applicable to the fact situation of the case cannot be accepted. It is further submitted that Section 115JA(4) and Section 115JB(5) deals with post determination of the profit under the Companies Act. It is further submitted that if the contention of the assessee that Section 115JB

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

The appeal stands dismissed

67,000/- in the hands of M/s Mrigiya Electronics Inds. Pvt. Ltd. Further, disallowance of said sum in the hands of the assessee is not justified. 21. "The total consideration paid by the assessee company to acquire 134.3 bighas of land as per the submission of AR is Rs. 119527000/- which includes Rs.75967000/- paid to M/s Mrigiya Electronics Inds

COMM OF WEALTHTAX HYD vs. M/S. N.K.LEASINGANDCONST CO P.LTD HYD

Appeal is disposed of

67 OF 2003 2 provision in the Income Tax Act, 1961 and specifically excluded from the application of Rule- 9-B of the Income Tax Rules, 1962, the claim for deduction of entire expenditure incurred by the film distributor for the preparation of the positive prints of the films is allowable under Section 37 of the Income

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 II vs. P. Govinda Rao

The appeals are dismissed

Bench: Us. For Convenience We Are Noticing The Facts Of Appeal Bearing D.B. Income Tax Appeal No.67/2007, Rajasthan Art Emporium V. Dcit, Circle, Jodhpur.

67 / 2007 Rajasthan Art Emporium, through its partner Mr. R.K.Singhal s/o Shri H.K.Singhal, aged about 55 years, Heritage House, Rai Ka Bagh, Jodhpur. ----Appellant Versus D.C.I.T., Circle, Jodhpur. ----Respondent Connected With D.B. Income Tax Appeal No. 117 / 2006 Rajasthan Art Emporium ----Appellant Versus D.C.I.T.Circle Jodhpur ----Respondent D.B. Income Tax Appeal No. 5 / 2007 Raj.Art Emporium ----Appellant Versus D.C.I.T.Jodhpur ----Respondent

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

67. Further, registration of the Sale Deeds in violation of Section 32A of the Registration Act and Rule 72A of the Rules, which make it incumbent on the Registering Officer to call for and examine one of the identity cards as enumerated in the said Rule, go a long way to demonstrate the fraud involved, as has been declared

THE ASST COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX vs. SRI K.C.K.A.GUPTA

The Appeal is dismissed

Bench: C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY,T.AMARNATH GOUD

Section 263 of the Act, as under: a) The Commissioner has to be satisfied of twin conditions, namely, (i) the order of the Assessing Officer sought to be revised is erroneous; and (ii) it is prejudicial to the interests of the Revenue. If one of them is absent - if the order of the Income Tax Officer is erroneous

The Commissioner of Income Tax IV vs. Praga Tools Limited

Bench: GODA RAGHURAM,N.RAVI SHANKAR

67,328/- and deferred r research u/s 35(2) of Rs.1,55,3 purposes of determining deducti NJAB AND HARYANA ARH ITA-81-2012 (O&M) Date of Decision: 25.07.2024 …Appellant …Respondent NJEEV PRAKASH SHARMA NJAY VASHISTH or the appellant. ) .03.2014, for determination on he circumstances of the case, the lding the decision of Ld. CIT(A) cate the expenses