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

74. By virtue of the exercise of power under Section 154, the AO withdrew the credit of TDS in the sum of Rs.24,65,761 on the basis that the Assessee was not the owner of the property and further that the rent on which tax was deducted was not shown as income. 75. The CIT (A) reversed the finding

Commissioner of Income Tax, vs. M/s. Kokivenkateswara Reddy AND others,

Appeals of the Revenue are dismissed

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

74. By virtue of the exercise of power under Section 154, the AO withdrew the credit of TDS in the sum of Rs.24,65,761 on the basis that the Assessee was not the owner of the property and further that the rent on which tax was deducted was not shown as income. 75. The CIT (A) reversed the finding

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, vs. M/s Polisetty Somasundaram,

disallowance of Rs.5,60,207/- and the appeal of the assessee was pending before CIT (A) and as per the CBDT instructions contained in Scrutiny Guidelines for F.Y. 2007-08 in clause 2 (v) (b) provided that all cases in which an appeal was pending before the CIT (A) against an addition/disallowance of Rs.5 lakhs or above, or the Department

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

Commissioner of Income Tax vs. Agricultural Market Committee

In the result, both the substantial questions

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

disallowance in respect of writing off the debts. It was further held that investment made for equity shares of M/s Gujarat Instruments Ltd., cannot be written off as a revenue loss and the same is a dead loss and therefore, is not allowable. Being aggrieved, the revenue as well as the assessee preferred appeals. The tribunal vide order dated

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

74 of the award, and the learned Court below without assigning any reason as to the acceptance of the validity of the said letter, most perfunctorily and erroneously relied upon the said letter dated 3-7-1999 and also exceeded his power and jurisdiction under Section 34 of the Act. xvi) The respondent for the first time adduced a letter

The Commissioner of Income Tax, vs. M/s. K.C.P.Limited

In the result, the appeal fails and is hereby dismissed

disallowed. The assessee thereupon preferred an appeal before the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), who by an order dated 22.07.2010 dismissed the appeal preferred by the assessee. The assessee thereupon filed an appeal before the Tribunal. The Tribunal, by an order dated 15.07.2011, inter alia held that reopening of the assessment under Section 147 read with Section

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

Commissioner of Income Tax vs. Agricultural Market Committee

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

disallowed by the Assessing Officer and after verifying the relevant records. Thus, a finding was recorded that the assessee Shivani Gupta 2024.01.19 12:57 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document ITA No.244 of 2011 and ITA No.512 of 2017 4 2024:PHHC:004741-DB had not furnished any inaccurate particulars and the Assessing Officer as well

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

74. To exacerbate all the above, the Buyers, as DW2 and DW3, expressly admitted that they had purchased the plaint schedule properties without even verifying the basic due diligence documents like the Encumbrance Certificates, Possession Certificates, etc. (see pages 9 and 10 of deposition of DW2 and pages 8, 9 and 24 of PW3). Strangely, in the written statement

The Commissioner of Income Tax- I vs. M/s. Avon Organics Limited

Bench: GODA RAGHURAM,M.S.RAMACHANDRA RAO

disallowed as revenue expenditure but capitalised, is as under:- “S.No. Expenses Head Amount 01. Salary & Wages 2283936 02 Employer Contribution to PF 46658 03 Employer Contribution to ESI 46919 04 Admin Charges PF/EDLI 4316 05 ESLI Charges 1943 06 Medical Expenses 151 07 Books & Periodicals 986 08 House Keeping Expenses 42493 09 Generator Running Maintt. 25121 ITA 257/2012 Page