The Commissioner of Income Tax(Central) vs. M/s.Madhu Enterprises

Bench: The Learned

70,87,301/-. The Assessee also claimed a deduction of ₹90 crores under Section 54F of the Act asserting that the consideration received from the sale of shares of FIITJEE Ltd. — an unlisted company, the gains from which would otherwise be chargeable to tax as capital gains — was invested in acquiring a residential house property bearing the address

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

Commissioner of IncomeTax-2, vs. Mr. Mustafa Alam Khan,

Appeal is allowed

Bench: SANJAY KUMAR,GUDISEVA SHYAM PRASAD

disallowing the claim for deduction under Section 80JJAA of the Act in respect of permanent employees solely on the ground that they were employed for less than 300 days during the relevant previous years despite the fact that they had been employed for periods much longer than 300 days?” Re. substantial questions

The Commissioner of Income Tax-I vs. Ascend Telecom Infrastructure Private Limited

Bench: RAMESH RANGANATHAN,M.SATYANARAYANA MURTHY

70 to 80 of IT Act are not applicable to trusts as they only deal with carry forward and set off of loss and not excess expenditure or deficit? 3. This Court in case of ‘Commissioner of Income Tax-III, Pune v. Rajasthan & Gujarati Charitable Foundation Poona’ [2018] 89 taxmann.com 127 [SC] with regard to allowability and Depreciation

Commissioner of Income Tax, vs. Agricultural Market Committee,

In the result, the appeal (ITA/70/2011) is allowed to the extent indicated

Bench: : The Hon’Ble Justice T.S. Sivagnanam & The Hon’Ble Justice Hiranmay Bhattacharyya Date : 20Th March, 2023 Appearance : Mr. C. Bhaskaran, Adv. Ms. Swapna Das, Adv. …For The Appellant. Mr. Aryak Dutt, Adv. …For The Respondent.. The Court : - This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Under Section 260A Of The Income Tax Act (The Act) Is Directed Against The Order Dated September 30, 2009 Passed By The Income Tax Appellate Tribunal “B” Bench, Kolkata In Ita No.2486/Kol/2007 For The Assessment Year 2003-2004. The Appeal Was Admitted On 18.03.2011 On The Following Substantial Questions Of Law:- “1. Whether The Tribunal Below, While Interpreting Section 36(1)(Viia)(A) Of The Income-Tax Act, 1961, Committed Substantial Error Of Law In Holding That Deduction Under The First Proviso Was Alternative To That Under Sub-Clause (A) & That No Deduction Under The First Proviso Was Allowable If Deduction Had Been Allowed Under Sub-Clause (A) Thereby Rejecting The Appellant’S

70,000/- under the first proviso ? 2. Whether the Tribunal below committed substantial error of law in holding that the proviso of sub-sections (2) and (3) inserted in Section 14A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 with effect from April 1,2007 and Rule 8D inserted in the Income Tax Rules 1962 on March 24, 2008 was procedural

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

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

In the result, the appeal is disposed of

Bench: ANIS,SANJAY KUMAR

Section 147 of the Act determined the income of the assessee at Rs.51,71,70,670/- and made following additions: (a) disallowance

Director of Income Tax (International Taxation) vs. Dr. K. Kalpana Reddy

Bench: M.GANGA RAO,RAMESH RANGANATHAN

disallow the claim of deduction? 2. Facts giving rise to filing of this appeal briefly stated are that the assessee is a banking company. The assessee filed return of income for Assessment Year 2007-08 on 29.10.2007 declaring total income of Rs.593,48,70,178/-. The return was processed under Section

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

Section 271(1) (c). From the reading of the assessment order it is not clear that whether the AO was satisfied even prima facie that this claim is suitable for initiating penalty proceedings. The same, therefore, cannot be sustained. On the point of penalty on disallowance after appreciation of facts and circumstances of the case, no penalty is exigable

Commissioner of Income Tax-III., vs. Smt. Chirala Nivedita Reddy

disallowed certain amounts including the exemption claimed under Section 10(29) of the Act, as well as certain categories of income and purchase. (While the matter stood thus, on 17.3.2006, the A.O. issued a reassessment notice, this time alleging that exemption claimed under Section 10(29) was inadmissible. He sought to add back

STATE BANK OF HYDERABAD vs. DY COMMR. OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE 3 (2)

Appeal is dismissed

Bench: N.TUKARAMJI,UJJAL BHUYAN

Section 143(3) of the Act. ::3:: 5. In the course of the assessment proceedings, it was found that assessee had accounted for gross interest earned net of unrealised interest income of previous year on advances identified as Non-Performing Assets (NPAs) for the first time during the year as per norms laid down by the Reserve Bank of India

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 -II vs. M/S Heritage Foods India Limited,

70,98,415/- on account of interest on borrowed funds paid for pre-operative period used for purchase of machinery by ignoring explanation 8 of section 43(1) ? (ii) Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Hon’ble Income Tax Appellate Tribunal was justified in allowing expenditure relating to the public issue of debentures

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-III vs. Sri N.Sai Baba Naidu

Bench: J SREENIVAS RAO,ALOK ARADHE

disallowed. The net result was an addition of `52,92,000/-. 3. The assessee filed an appeal to the CIT(Appeals) and reiterated the stand taken by him before the assessing officer. The CIT(Appeals) affirmed the order of the assessing officer and dismissed the assessee’s appeal. The assessee appealed further to the Tribunal in ITA No.4652/Del/2010. The Tribunal

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

disallowed the claim taking a view that the income from the Bonds could not be treated to be income attributable to the banking business within the meaning of Section 80P(2)(a)(i) of the IT Act. The assessee’s appeal failed but the appellate Tribunal allowed the claim. Before the Punjab and Haryana High Court the question was whether

The Commissioner of Income Tax-II vs. The Andhra Bank Employees Co.Operative Bank Limited

In the result, for the above reasons, these appeals fail and

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

disallowed the claim taking a view that the income from the Bonds could not be treated to be income attributable to the banking business within the meaning of Section 80P(2)(a)(i) of the IT Act. The assessee’s appeal failed but the appellate Tribunal allowed the claim. Before the Punjab and Haryana High Court the question was whether

Commissioner of Income Tax -II vs. The Agrasen Coop. Urban Bank Ltd.,

In the result, for the above reasons, these appeals fail and

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

disallowed the claim taking a view that the income from the Bonds could not be treated to be income attributable to the banking business within the meaning of Section 80P(2)(a)(i) of the IT Act. The assessee’s appeal failed but the appellate Tribunal allowed the claim. Before the Punjab and Haryana High Court the question was whether