Commissioner of Income Tax vs. Agricultural Market Committee

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

disallowing the expenditure so that it could attract Section 68 was the exactitude with which the transaction could be pin pointed

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

The appeal is disposed of

68,953/- under normal provisions and book- profit of Rs.9,85,25,142/-. Tax was payable on book profits as per Section 115JB of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (“Act”, for short). The aforementioned return was taken up for scrutiny and additions of Rs.1,00,500/- and Rs.1,17,141/- on substantive basis, and Rs.10 lacs on protective basis, were

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

The appeal is disposed of

disallow the deduction as claimed by the assessee under Section 80IB(10) of the Act and to carry out the assessment 5 afresh in accordance with law after affording an opportunity of hearing to the assessee. 3. Being aggrieved, the assessee filed an appeal before the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Tribunal’, for short). The Tribunal

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

The Commissioner of Income Tax vs. Shri Byru Venkateswarlu

Appeal is dismissed

Bench: RAMESH RANGANATHAN,M.SATYANARAYANA MURTHY

Disallowance of Dalali Rs.2,136/- 15” 6. Counsel for the appellant has further contended that the Gujarat High Court in the case of National Textiles vs. Commissioner of Income Tax reported in 249 ITR 0125 in para 21-24 has observed as under: “21. The provisions of section 68

The Prl. Commissioner of Income vs. The Tarun Kumar Goyal

The appeal is dismissed

Bench: : The Hon’Ble Justice T.S. Sivagnanam & The Hon’Ble Justice Hiranmay Bhattacharyya Date : 3Rd January, 2023. Appearance : Mr. Tilak Mita, Adv. ..For Appellant Ms. Swapna Das, Adv. Mr. Siddharth Das, Adv. …For Respondent Re: Re: Ga/1/2022 The Court:- Heard Mr. Tilak Mitra, Learned Advocate For The Appellant & Ms. Swapna Das, Learned Advocate For The Respondent. There Is A Delay Of 370 Days In Filing The Appeal. We Have Perused The Affidavit Filed In Support Of The Condone Delay Petition & We Find Sufficient Cause Has Been Shown For Not Preferring The Appeal Within The Period Of Limitation. Hence, The Application Is Allowed & The Delay In Filing The Appeal Is Condoned.

section 260A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 [the Act] is directed against the order dated 15.3.2021 passed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal “C” Bench, Kolkata [Tribunal] in ITA No.686/Kol/2019 for the assessment year 2015-16. The revenue has raised the following substantial question of law for consideration : 2 1. WHETHER in the fact and the circumstances

COMMR.OF I.T. A.P.I HYD vs. DIAMOND HATCHERIES (P) LTD

Appeal is allowed

68 of 2001 Commissioner of Income Tax (Central), Ludhiana ...Appellant Versus M/s Highway Cycle Industries Ltd., Ludhiana ...Respondent CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HEMANT GUPTA HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HARI PAL VERMA 1. Whether Reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? 2. To be referred to the Reporters or not? 3. Whether the judgment should

The Pr. Commissioner of Income vs. Shri. Vishnu Mohan Reddy Chintapally

Appeal is disposed of

Bench: J SREENIVAS RAO,ALOK ARADHE

68,09,650/-. 9. The return was processed under Section 143(1) of the Act. But was, thereafter, picked up for scrutiny under CASS. A notice under Section 143(2) of the Act was issued on 03.09.2015 and duly served upon the Firm on 04.09.2015. Further, notices under Sections 143(2) and 142(1) of the Act, along with

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

68,280/- levied u/s 271(1)(c) on account of inaccurate particulars furnished by assessee in original return and detected by the Assessing Officer during scrutiny u/s 143(3)?” 3. The counsel for the appellant and the assessee has taken us to the judgment of ITAT which held as under:- We have heard rival submissions and considered them carefully. After

Commissioner of Income Tax-II vs. Energy Solutions International India Pvt Ltd.,

Bench: J. UMA DEVI,V RAMASUBRAMANIAN

Section 260A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter ‘1961 Act’) had framed the following question, as the substantial question of law: “Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal is justified in law in setting aside the disallowance of Rs.5,89,49,503/- claimed as Transport Creditors by following decisions in cases

The Commissioner of Income Tax - IV vs. M/s. Mekins Agro Product (P) Ltd.

disallowance. We feel the assessee should be allowed to write back the depreciation for this year and even for previous and then allow the same to be carried forward for application for subsequent years. It is for the assessee to write back depreciation and if Hi >- V II done the Assessing Officer will modify the assessment determining higher income

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 IV vs. Margadarshi Chit Fund Pvt. Ltd.,

The appeal is dismissed

Section 40 (a) (ia) of the Act 1961 payment of Rs.1,01,016/- made to Satake India Engg (P) Ltd on account of AMC was disallowed. Further Rs.56,650/- incurred on purchase of UPS held to be capitalized and depreciation was ordered to be charged on it. Rs.7650/- were added to the income of the assessee on account of telephone

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

Bench: CHALLA KODANDA RAM,G.CHANDRAIAH

68,514.00 2. Rs.1,44,00,000 18.12.99 18.12.99 – 31.5.01 @ 1% p.m. for 18 months 1.6.01 – 31.5.02 @ 0.75% p.m. for 12 months 1.6.02 – 31.8.04 @ 2/3% p.m. for 27 months Rs.25,92,000.00 Rs.12,96,000.00 Rs.25,66,080.00 3. Rs. 37,08,667 29.01.2000 29.1.2000 – 31.5.01 @ 1% p.m. for 5 months 1.6.01 – 31.5.02 @ 0.75% p.m. for 12 months

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

Sections 36 (1) (iii) of the Act are met, deduction of interest cannot be denied merely because the Assessee was a cash rich company having enough resources of its own. 68. It is pointed out that in the earlier years Gopal Das Bhawan was still under construction and the interest was capitalised only up to the stage of completion

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

Appeals of the Revenue are dismissed

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

Sections 36 (1) (iii) of the Act are met, deduction of interest cannot be denied merely because the Assessee was a cash rich company having enough resources of its own. 68. It is pointed out that in the earlier years Gopal Das Bhawan was still under construction and the interest was capitalised only up to the stage of completion

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 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

68. In addition, when Sri.Rafi, as DW2, was specifically asked about the details of the plaint schedule properties purchased by him RFA 554/15 & CON. CASES 54 through the Sale Deeds, he was unable to offer proper answers, as are evident from pages 5, 6, 7, 27, 28 and 29 of his deposition; nor did he know about a shed bearing