PR COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX vs. R SURYANARAYANA

In the result, the appeal filed by the revenue stands

Bench: RAMESH RANGANATHAN,KONGARA VIJAYA LAKSHMI

disallowance under Section 14A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 read with Rule 8D of the Income Tax Rules, 1962 contrary to the provisions of the section? (iv) Whether on the facts and the circumstances of the case, the Learned Tribunal has erred in law as well as in fact and the impugned order is perverse in confirming the order

Commissioner of Income Tax-V, vs. Sri S.Venkat Reddy, (PAN ALAPS4009A)

In the result, the appeal fails and is hereby

disallowance under Section 14A of the Act. The assessee thereupon filed an appeal before the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), who by an order dated 03.07.2006 partly allowed the appeal preferred by the assessee. The assessee as well as the revenue approached the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal by filing appeals. The Tribunal, 5 by an order dated 17.05.2013 partly allowed

The Commissioner of Income Tax -V, vs. M/S Secunderabad Club

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

disallowance under Section 14A was not worked out.” 3. In W.P.(C) 2795/2008 (for AY 2005-06) the allegations and grounds of reassessment notice were identical. The AO felt that mixing up of trading sales and absence of unit specific profit and loss accounts led to excess deduction under Section 80IB to the extent of ₹ 1,73

Sri Rajesh Rawtani vs. The Income Tax Officer

The appeals are disposed off in the above

Bench: P.SAM KOSHY,SUDDALA CHALAPATHI RAO

73 (1969) ITR 53: - “The question that concerns us is whether, while working out the net profits, a trader can provide from his gross receipts his liability to pay a certain sum for every additional year of service which he receives from his employees. This, in our view, he can do, if such liability is properly ascertainable

THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-IV vs. M/S QUALITY CARE INDIA LTD

Bench: A.SHANKAR NARAYANA,V RAMASUBRAMANIAN

73,75,000/- was identified to the assets acquired, which had been capatilized. Therefore, after the total payment of interest to the tune of Rs.6,99,76,000/-, a balance of Rs.2,26,01,000/- had been charged to P & L account as an extraordinary item. 6. After reopening, the Assessing Officer passed an order on 26.12.2011. The assessee filed

The Commissioner of Income Tax-III vs. M/s.Regency Ceramics Ltd

The appeal is dismissed

Section 260A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 has been preferred by the Revenue, being aggrieved by the order dated 19.06.2009 passed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal in ITA No. 967/DEL/2008 pertaining to the assessment year 2005-06. The issue that has been raised in this appeal pertains to the initial disallowance by the Assessing Officer of `73

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

Bench: J. UMA DEVI,V RAMASUBRAMANIAN

73 - 8 - ITA No. 383 of 2016 Tax Tribunal], if the High Court is satisfied that the case involves a substantial question of law.” (Other sub-sections not being much relevant are not reproduced) Appeal lies only if the case involves a substantial question of law, which the memorandum of appeal, ideally speaking, has to precisely state. However

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

The appeals are hereby dismissed

Bench: RAMESH RANGANATHAN,KONGARA VIJAYA LAKSHMI

73. The Tribunal also rightly held that an object of general public utility does not necessarily require the activities to be funded or subsidized by the State. So long as the objects fall within the ambit of the words “object of general public utility,” it is sufficient. The achievements of those objects do not have to be as a result

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 -1 vs. R.S. Sudheesh

Section 80 1A of the Income Tax Act ? Learned counsel appearing for the parties have confined their submissions to substantial question nos.1 and 2. 4. Substantial question no.1 deals with payment of bonus by the assessee in the Assessment Year 2003-04 claimable and paid in the Assessment Year 2002-03. The Department, raising similar questions of law, filed

The Agricultural Market Committee vs. The Commissioner of Income Tax

The appeals stand dismissed

Bench: It & Is Contrary To The Decision Of Hon'Ble Supreme Court In The Case Of Esthuri Aswathiah 1 Gurbax Singh 2014.11.04 17:49 I Attest To The Accuracy & Integrity Of This Document High Court Chandigarh

Sections 143(3)/147 of the Act at an income of ` 21,89,760/-. Aggrieved by the order, the assessee filed appeal before the Commissioner of Income Tax (appeals) [CIT(A)]. Vide order dated 4.5.2007, Annexure A.II, the CIT(A) partly allowed the appeal giving relief of ` 18,73,720/-. Not satisfied with the order, the revenue filed appeal before

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. 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

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

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

disallows any future claims for escalation is conclusive and binding on the parties. If the clause debarring future claims permits escalation subject to certain conditions, no claim is admissible if the conditions are not satisfied. However, if the conditions are satisfied, the Contractor will have a right to claim escalation. This is a contractual right. The right originates and subsists

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

73. That said, Sri.Sajeed - the third defendant, has an added problem. He is admittedly the nephew of Sri.Basheer and Sri.Shajideen and he conceded in his testimony to be not in best terms with the former, as is evident from Exhibit A30 letter dated 27.10.2004. His explanation, as DW3, was that his father negotiated with the Owners on his behalf