The Commissioner of Income Tax [Central] vs. M/s.GVPR Engineers Ltd

The appeal is dismissed

Bench: RAMESH RANGANATHAN,M.SATYANARAYANA MURTHY

Sections 36(l)(iii), 37(1) and 57(iii) of the said Act. 5. Being aggrieved by the said disallowance of the total sum of ₹ 10,79

The Commissioner of Income Tax- V, vs. Dr. M.Venkataramana,

Bench: The Commissioner Of Income Tax. After Considering The Plus & Minus Points, The Appeal Was Finalised, Whereby Some Points Were

Section 143(3) of the Income Tax Act by the Assessing Officer as per order dated 10.01.2002, assessing a total income of Rs.5,79,77,070/- and fixing the tax liability accordingly. This is sought to be challenged by the Assessee by filing appeal before the Commissioner of Income Tax. After considering the plus and minus points, the appeal

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

The appeals are hereby dismissed

Bench: RAMESH RANGANATHAN,KONGARA VIJAYA LAKSHMI

disallowance of exemption. 74. It cannot possibly be suggested that the Government of Punjab formed the trusts under the Punjab Town Improvement Act, 1922 because it wanted to carry on the business as colonizers or developers under the mask of the category “objects of general public utility”. PANKAJ BAWEJA 2018.09.20 19:01 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity

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 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

79. I am without even a shred of doubt that the Trial Court has concluded as afore correctly and without any error - either in appreciation of the evidence or in jurisdiction. Since it is now too well entrenched in law, for little need for restatement, that even a sale deed, not supported by adequate consideration, is vitiated by the vice

The Commissioner of Income Tax-IV vs. M/s. Labham Finance Limited

Bench: The Commissioner Of Income Tax. After Considering The Plus & Minus Points, The Appeal Was Finalised As

Section 143(3) of the Income Tax Act by the Assessing Officer as per Annexure A order dated 10.01.2002, assessing a total income of Rs.5,79,77,070/- and fixing the tax liability accordingly. This was sought to be challenged by the Assessee by filing appeal before the Commissioner of Income Tax. After considering the plus and minus points

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

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

79. For the aforementioned reasons, the Court is of the view that the plea of the Assessee should succeed. Accordingly, the question is answered in favour of the Assessee and against the Revenue. ITA 210/2003 & connected matters Page 33 of 36 Interest under Section 201 (1A) 80. The next question is about charging of interest under Section

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

Appeals of the Revenue are dismissed

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

79. For the aforementioned reasons, the Court is of the view that the plea of the Assessee should succeed. Accordingly, the question is answered in favour of the Assessee and against the Revenue. ITA 210/2003 & connected matters Page 33 of 36 Interest under Section 201 (1A) 80. The next question is about charging of interest under Section

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

79,639/- instead of 6,35,492/- “Based on the above mistake, the appellant also intimated to the AO the consequences of such clerical mistake by stating that net impact due to the mistake will be that the depreciation claim for energy saving devices in the computation statement Rs. 83,93,24,100/- will be reduced

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 [TDS] vs. The Executive Engineer

In the result, these appeals fail and are

Bench: RAMESH RANGANATHAN,M.SEETHARAMA MURTI

section 115 JB of Act? 8. Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal erred in allowing the relief with regard to losses which were due to operational mistakes, related mainly to ATM transactions of customer and that loss is essential capital loss incurred for operational purposes? 9. Whether on the facts