Sri Rajesh Rawtani vs. The Income Tax Officer

The appeals are disposed off in the above

Bench: P.SAM KOSHY,SUDDALA CHALAPATHI RAO

1) (arising in ITA-1578/2010 and 278/2010)? (4) Whether the Tribunal fell into error in holding that loss of one project eligible for deduction under Section-80 HHB could not be set of against the profits of other projects eligible under the same provision (arising in ITA 1578/2010 and 278/2010)? 3. Question No.1 – Whether the provisions made claiming deduction

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

Bench: SUJOY PAUL,NAMAVARAPU RAJESHWAR RAO

disallowance amounting to Rs.87,442/-. The AO, however, added to the respondent’s/assessee’s income, as indicated above, Rs.5,06,73,874/- based on the following rationale contained in the order dated 03.11.2010: “The language of subsection (1) of section

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

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. 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

PR COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX vs. R SURYANARAYANA

In the result, the appeal filed by the revenue stands

Bench: RAMESH RANGANATHAN,KONGARA VIJAYA LAKSHMI

73,78,133/- 2 on account of commission to foreign and Indian agent by holding that the assessee had paid commission and brokerage for procurement of sale without appreciating the fact that the assessee had failed to provide documents/evidence in support of such services actually provided/discharged by the agents? We have heard Mr. P.K. Bhowmik, learned standing counsel

The Commissioner of Income Tax -1 vs. R.S. Sudheesh

73,974/- out of which a sum of Rs.6,13,12,992/- related to the trade debts and the remaining amount represented two categories as follows: 1. Advances given for acquisition of capital assets - Rs.28,67,407/- 2. Advances given for acquisition of Revenue items -Rs.2,32,93,575/- 1 (2019) 419 ITR 100 I.T.A. No.172/2013 -5- The Assessing Officer

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

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

In the result, the appeal fails and is hereby

1) of the Act, provident fund payments and 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

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.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, 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

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

The appeals are hereby dismissed

Bench: RAMESH RANGANATHAN,KONGARA VIJAYA LAKSHMI

1)Improvement Trust Bathinda is providing “Public utility services” and not for the purpose of profit. (2)That the functions of Improvement Trust Bathinda in Punjab is the same before the amendment of the Act and after the amendment of section 2(15) of the Act. (3)From the Balance sheet we find that there is always Loss. PANKAJ BAWEJA

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-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

1], the view taken above has been reiterated in the following words: ‚25. Moreover, umpteen numbers of judgments of this Court have categorically held that the courts should not interfere with an Page 30 of 60 award merely because an alternative view on facts and interpretation of contract exists. The courts need to be cautious and should defer

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.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

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