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

disallowed and could be subjected to tax as income in the hands of the assessee. iii) Section 80M read with Section 80AA of the Act, 1961 provides for deduction @ 60% on the income by way of dividend from a domestic company. Therefore, the entire amount received as dividend was the income from dividend and, as such, deduction under Section

COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-TDA vs. M/S.IDEA CELLULAR LTD

Bench: SUJOY PAUL,NAMAVARAPU RAJESHWAR RAO

Section 14A(2) and (3) read with Rule 8D of the Rules or a best judgment determination, as earlier prevailing, would become applicable.” 7. In the present case the Assessing Officer has not recorded his satisfaction regarding the correctness of the self disallowance

Commissioner of Income tAx, vs. Sri Padala Ramakrishna Reddy,

The appeals stand dismissed

Bench: RAMESH RANGANATHAN,M.SATYANARAYANA MURTHY

7. He contended that taking into (9 of 12) consideration the observations made by the Supreme Court in the case of Income Tax Officer, Udaipur Vs. Arihant Tiles and Marbles (P) Ltd.- (2010) 320 ITR 79 (SC), the Supreme Court has observed as under: “16. In the case of Aman Marble Industries Pvt. Ltd. v. Collector of Central Excise reported

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 of Rs.74,08,964/- under the provisions of Section 80JJAA of the Act were proposed. The 5 assessee thereupon filed objections before the Dispute Resolution Panel contesting all the additions. The Dispute Resolution Panel, however rejected the objections preferred by the assessee. The assessee thereupon filed an appeal before the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (hereinafter referred

The Principal Commissioner of Income Tax vs. M/s.Midwest Granites Private Limited

Appeal stands dismissed accordingly

Bench: RAMESH RANGANATHAN,KONGARA VIJAYA LAKSHMI

disallowed the claim made under said sections on the basis of material available on record and after application of relevant provisions of the Act? 6. Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, Tribunal is right in law in setting in holding that the provisions of Section 115JB is not - 5 - applicable to the assessee-Bank

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

The appeal is disposed of

7. Thus, from close scrutiny of Section 263 it is evident that twin conditions are required to be satisfied for exercise of revisional jurisdiction under Section 263 of the Act firstly, the order of the Assessing Officer is erroneous and secondly, that it is prejudicial to the interest of the revenue on account of error in the order of assessment

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

Bench: SUJOY PAUL,NAMAVARAPU RAJESHWAR RAO

Section 14A, and is only to the extent of disallowing expenditure “incurred by the assessee in relation to the tax exempt income”. This proportion or portion of the tax exempt income surely cannot swallow the entire amount as has happened in this case.” [Emphasis is ours] 7

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

Bench: RAMESH RANGANATHAN,KONGARA VIJAYA LAKSHMI

disallowed the aforesaid amount in terms of Section 14A of the Act. A sum of Rs.3,43,28,658/- being 5% thereof was estimated as expenditure incurred for earning such income. 3. The assessee, thereupon, filed an appeal. The Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) by an order dated 31.05.2011 partly allowed the appeal. Being aggrieved, the revenue as well

Commissioner of Income Tax-2, vs. Agricultural Market Committee,

The appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: V.V.S.RAO,SANJAY KUMAR

Section 36(1)(iii) by this Court. In paras No. 7, 8, 9 and 10, it was observed as under:- “7. Further, the judgment in the case of ‘Abhishek Industries’ (supra) relied upon by both the Authorities below has also been overruled by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of ‘Hero Cycles

The Commissioner of Income Tax vs. M/s Kaveri Bar AND Restaurant,

Bench: ABHINAND KUMAR SHAVILI,V RAMASUBRAMANIAN

disallowance causing alleged escapement of income. Mr. Khaitan, learned senior counsel appearing for the assessee/petitioner relies on a decision of this Court in the case of Calcutta Club Ltd. vs. Income-Tax Officer and Ors. reported in (2020) 426 ITR 157 (Cal) particularly paragraph 30 of the said judgment which is quoted hereunder : “30. Considering the submission of the parties

The Commissioner of Income Tax-III vs. Smt.Anitha Sanghi

Bench: RAMESH RANGANATHAN,M.SATYANARAYANA MURTHY

disallowance of proportionate expenses as required under Section 14A of the Act. Accordingly, an addition of Rs.20,38,002/- was made by the Assessing Officer. The aforesaid order was upheld in 7

THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX-IV, HYDERABAD vs. M/S NAVA BHARAT VENTURES LTD., HYD

The appeal is dismissed

Bench: P.SAM KOSHY,NARSING RAO NANDIKONDA

disallowance of claim of deduction under Section 8O-lA of the Act, 1961. 7. Having considered the entire material placed

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

disallowed and added to the income of the assessee. Since I am satisfied that the assessee has furnished inaccurate particulars of its income, penalty proceedings under section 271(1)(c) are being initiated separately.” 7

The Commissioner of Income- Tax - V, vs. M/s. Krishnaveni Constructions,

Bench: RAMESH RANGANATHAN,M.SATYANARAYANA MURTHY

7. Relating to the Assessment year 2008-09, the Assessing Authority made disallowance of Bad debts, set off of brought forward losses and charged interest under Section

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

Bench: CHALLA KODANDA RAM,G.CHANDRAIAH

7. In the present case, it is seen that there is no dispute that what are the dues of the plaintiff towards the defendants that stood determined in terms of the Order dated 7.7.2003 passed by the Income Tax Settlement Commission, and which Settlement Commission was approached by the plaintiff for settlement of the disputes and determination of the entitlement

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

Bench: ABHINAND KUMAR SHAVILI,V RAMASUBRAMANIAN

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 Commissioner of Income Tax [Central] vs. Akula Nageswara Rao

The appeals stand dismissed

Bench: SANJAY KUMAR,GUDISEVA SHYAM PRASAD

disallowed in respect of Barotiwala Unit during the assessment year 2012-13. Accordingly, show cause notice under Section 263 of the Act was issued on 28.02.2016 by the CIT. After considering the reply filed by the assessee, order under Section 263 of the Act was passed by the CIT on 16.03.2016. Aggrieved by the order, the assessee filed an appeal

The Commissioner of Income Tax IV vs. M/s. Nav Bharat Enterprises Limited

disallowance of deduction under section 14A made by assessing authority even though the same is in accordance with law? (12) Whether the order of the tribunal can be said as perverse in nature as the tribunal has relied on its earlier decisions which have not reached finality since appeals preferred by Revenue under section 260A against those orders are 7