Commissioner of Income Tax vs. M/s.K.Seetha Ramaiah AND Others

The appeal stands dismissed

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

disallowed by the A.O. and confirmed by CIT(A) and whether the finding in respect of the above additions is perverse? 3. “Whether on the facts and circumstances of the case, the learned ITAT was right and justified in holding that Rs. 16 Lac had flown back from unexplained lease payments and whether the finding in respect of the above

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

3 1961 on the income from dividends (full amount of dividend – interest on borrowed capital utilized for investment in units of UTI) as against the claim of the assessee for deduction under Section 80M of the Act, 1961 on the full amount of dividend; and ordered for interest under Section 201(1A). The assessing officer also made certain additions/disallowances

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

Appeal is allowed

Bench: SANJAY KUMAR,GUDISEVA SHYAM PRASAD

70,000/-. Since the right to use the trademarks was granted for a limited period of 36 months, the assessee proportionately claimed deduction of the amount over the period of 36 months from January 2003. 8. The assessee’s claim for deduction was allowed in the assessment order passed under Section 143(3) of the IT Act for the first

The Commisioner of Income TAx-1 vs. Divya Shakti Granites Ltd.,

Bench: RAMESH RANGANATHAN,M.SATYANARAYANA MURTHY

3 of Ex.P4 stipulates a period of sixty days for execution of sale deed, and this has to be reckoned from the date of agreement, and alternatively, within a period of seven days reckoned from the obtainment of No Objection under Chapter XXC and Certificate under section 230A of the Income Tax Act, 1961, as per the requirement

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

In the result, the appeal is disposed of

Bench: ANIS,SANJAY KUMAR

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

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

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 (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 I vs. M/s. Bhagiradha Chemicals AND Industries Ltd.,

The appeal is disposed of

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 Exps Director 787,425 544,799 242,626 70%:30% Majorly on sales 6 Travelling Expenses- Foreign

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

Bench: CHALLA KODANDA RAM,G.CHANDRAIAH

70,798.00 Rs.19,57,145.00 2000-2001 22,75,638.00 5,31,927.00 Rs.28,07,565.00 2001-2002 11,54,322.00 57,720.00 Rs.12,12,042.00 u/S 143(3) 2001-2001 8,30,476.00 30,105.00 Rs. 8,60,581.00 u/S 143(a)(a) 2003-04 2,04,197.00 15,310.00 Rs. 2,19,507.00 ----------------- (A) TOTAL OUTSTANDING DEMAND

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

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

70,11,434/-. The return was processed regular assessment was issued on 31.10.1996. During the course of assessment proceedings, the appellant company filed various detailed and submitted reply in response to the information called for by the AO from time to time. While replying to the detailed questionnaire, issued by the complete information of bifurcation of energy saving devices. Which

COMR. OF IT HYD vs. M/S NEERAJ PETRO CHEMICALS LTD HYD

The appeal is partly allowed

Section 2(18) of the At. The assessee is engaged Page 2 of 8 O/TAXAP/382/2000 JUDGMENT in the business of manufacturer and sale of various Dyes, Chemicals, etc. It also manufactures certain items for industries engaged in explosives and agro-chemicals. 4. The assessee-company filed its return of income on 30.12.1991 for the A.Y. 1991-92 declaring total income

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

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

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

70 ITR 86 (SC) 15) (1996) 218 ITR 438 (SC) : (1996) 2 SCC 541 16) (1998) 232 ITR 282 (SC) : (1998) 6 SCC 129 : AIR 1999 SC 2955 17) (2008) 306 ITR 392 (SC) : (2008) 9 SCC 337 18) (2002) 255 ITR 423 (SC) : (2009) 17 SCC 620 19) (2003) 63 ITR 63 (P&H) 20) (2010) 3

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

70 ITR 86 (SC) 15) (1996) 218 ITR 438 (SC) : (1996) 2 SCC 541 16) (1998) 232 ITR 282 (SC) : (1998) 6 SCC 129 : AIR 1999 SC 2955 17) (2008) 306 ITR 392 (SC) : (2008) 9 SCC 337 18) (2002) 255 ITR 423 (SC) : (2009) 17 SCC 620 19) (2003) 63 ITR 63 (P&H) 20) (2010) 3