The Commissioner of Income Tax (Exemptions0 vs. Kalinga Cultural Trust

In the result, we do not find any

Bench: ANIS,SANJAY KUMAR

disallowed the assessee's claim for deduction under Section 10B of the Act. 5. The Assessing Officer inter alia held that assessee is entitled to deduction under Section 10B of the Act only after verification and the contention of the assessee that old machinery from FFIPL was transferred to it only in April 2007 does not deserve acceptance

Principal Commissioner of Income Tax-5 vs. M/s. VBC Industries Limited

In the result, we do not find any

Bench: RAMESH RANGANATHAN,M.SATYANARAYANA MURTHY

disallowed the assessee's claim for deduction under Section 10B of the Act. 5. The Assessing Officer inter alia held that assessee is entitled to deduction under Section 10B of the Act only after verification and the contention of the assessee that old machinery from FFIPL was transferred to it only in April 2007 does not deserve acceptance

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

Appeal is disposed of

Bench: J SREENIVAS RAO,ALOK ARADHE

72,46,700/- by making an addition of ₹4,37,046/- on account of disallowance of expenditure for personal use. 12. The learned PCIT exercising its powers under Section

The Pr. Commissioner of Income-Tax-1 vs. M/s. New River Software System Pvt Ltd.,

The appeals are dismissed

Bench: RAMESH RANGANATHAN,M.SATYANARAYANA MURTHY

disallowance of interest of `75,47,897/- on unsecured loans was added under Section 68 of the Act and an amount of `1,51,200/- which was expended on the foreign guests was added. 3. Apropos the appeals filed in 2015, a similar reassessment order was passed pursuant to the search proceedings under Section 132, whereby inter alia additions

The Commissioner of Income Tax-I vs. Adaptec [India] Ltd

The appeals are dismissed

disallowance of interest of `75,47,897/- on unsecured loans was added under Section 68 of the Act and an amount of `1,51,200/- which was expended on the foreign guests was added. 3. Apropos the appeals filed in 2015, a similar reassessment order was passed pursuant to the search proceedings under Section 132, whereby inter alia additions

PRL COMMR OF INCOME TAX, TIRUPATI, CHITTOOR DIST vs. V DWARAKANATH REDDY, CHITTOOR

The appeals are hereby dismissed

Bench: RAMESH RANGANATHAN,KONGARA VIJAYA LAKSHMI

72. The Tribunal rightly rejected the contention that to fall within the ambit of the words " advancement of any other object of general public utility" the trust must necessarily be involved only in implementing poverty alleviation programs or doing other acts of charity. It is sufficient if it does precisely what the last category in Section 2(15) states namely

Commissioner of Income Tax, vs. M/s Polisetty Somasundaram,

Section 80-G. (10) The assessee-company had claimed total expenses of Rs.1,97,72,54,772/- under different heads in the P & L Account. No details were furnished by the assessee to prove the genuineness of these expenses. Moreover, the expenses under various heads were allowable only when TDS was deducted and deposited in the Government account. Since

Commissioner of Income Tax vs. Sri B. Nagendar,

In the result, Tax Appeal is dismissed with a

Bench: CHALLA KODANDA RAM,G.CHANDRAIAH

section 80I, directing to adjust the same in interest  expenses?” 2. Briefly stated, the facts are that the assessee is a private Trust  Page 2 of 9 O/TAXAP/316/2001 JUDGMENT carrying   on   business   of   manufacturing   washing   powder   in   the  name of “K.K. Patel Industries”. The assessee filed the return of  income on 29.06.1988 declaring total income of Rs.1

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

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

72,07/-. In view of above, the revised total depreciation claim of Rs. 3,16,84,86,154/- was intimated to the AO with a request that the same be accepted at the time of finalization of the assessment. In the reply dated 17.10.1997 the appellant company took care to enclose revised chart of depreciation as a separate Annexure

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

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. M/s.Kalyani Wines

In the result, I find this appeal bereft of merit and accordingly,

Bench: Hon’Ble Mr. Justice Robin Phukan

72,649 B Escalation Rs.28,92,193 Rs.28,92,193 C Compensation for damages and loss of breach of contract Rs,10,00,000 Nil D Cost of Arbitration Nil E Interest 21% per annum 6% interest per annum from the date of filing of the application till payment Then being highly aggrieved and dissatisfied with the arbitral award

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 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

72. To cap it, neither of the Buyers have said about or explained the amounts spent for the purpose of Stamp Papers and registration of the Sale Deeds. This is relevant because the underlying allegation of the Owners is that Sri.Shajideen, using the name of the Buyers, grabbed the property. Hence, it was certainly upto the Buyers to show that