The Commissioner of Income Tax IV vs. M/s Matrix Power Pvt Ltd.,

disallowed, as the income of this unit was exempt from tax. In response, the Assessee furnished its detailed submissions, which, however, were rejected by the AO who was of the opinion that as Section 10B was in Chapter-III of the Act, under the heading ―incomes which do not form part of total income‖, legislative intent was clear that such

THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX-IV, HYDERABAD vs. M/S NAVA BHARAT VENTURES LTD., HYD

The appeal is dismissed

Bench: P.SAM KOSHY,NARSING RAO NANDIKONDA

disallowed the entire claim of deduction under Section 80-lA of the Act, 19,61. Aggrieved by the order of the Ar;sessing

Andhra Pradesh Fibres Limited, vs. Addl. Commissioner of Income Tax,

disallowances are made, the mere absence of the discussion of the provisions of Section 80IB(13) read with Section 80IA (9) would not mean that the AO had not applied his mind to the said provisions. As pointed out in Kelvinator of India's case (supra) [CIT Vs. Kelvinator of India Ltd. (2002) 256 ITR 1 (Del) (FB)] , when

THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-IV, HYDERABAD vs. M/S NAVA BHARAT VENTURES LTD., HYDERABAD

Bench: P.SAM KOSHY,NARSING RAO NANDIKONDA

disallowed as assessee under Section 80-IA of the Rs.37,34,55,899 l- in resPect of assessment Year. Further

Commissioner of Income tAx, vs. Sri Padala Ramakrishna Reddy,

The appeals stand dismissed

Bench: RAMESH RANGANATHAN,M.SATYANARAYANA MURTHY

80-IA. Explanation.—For the purposes of this section,— (a) “convertible foreign exchange” means foreign exchange which is for the time being treated by the Reserve Bank of India (6 of 12) as convertible foreign exchange for the purposes of the Foreign Exchange Management Act, 1999 (42 of 1999), and any rules made thereunder or any other corresponding

THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (CENTRAL) HYD vs. RAJU NEURO AND MULTI SPECIALTIES PVT LTD., E.G.DIST

In the result, the appeal is disposed of

Bench: C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY,T.AMARNATH GOUD

Section 80-IB(10) of the Act to allow the proportionate deduction. Therefore, the entire claim made by the assessee was disallowed

The Commissioner of Income Tax I vs. M/s. Bhagiradha Chemicals AND Industries Ltd.,

The appeal is disposed of

disallowed under Section 36(1)(ii) of the Act. Secondly, the assessee had booked majority of the expenses against the unit carrying out trading operations and thereby had inflated profits of the manufacturing unit exempt under Section 80

Principal Commissioner of Income Tax vs. M/s Nara Constructions,

Bench: CHALLA KODANDA RAM,C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY

disallowed while computing the total income is not deemed to be income in respect of which particulars have been concealed. 6. In the context of the present case, we would like to first reproduce clause (viii) of Section 36(1) of the Act as applicable in the Assessment Years 2003-2004 to 2009-2010, which reads:- “36. (1) The deductions

Sri Rajesh Rawtani vs. The Income Tax Officer

The appeals are disposed off in the above

Bench: P.SAM KOSHY,SUDDALA CHALAPATHI RAO

disallowed the claim originally made under section 80G. The reasoning of these two lower authorities was that the claim was unsupported by any documentary proof with regard to the permissibility of the deduction and such being the case, relief of larger deduction as business expenditure could not be granted. 15. The Tribunal accepted the assessee’s argument and held that

Commissioner of Income Tax-2, vs. Agricultural Market Committee,

Bench: : The Hon’Ble Justice Surya Prakash Kesarwani & The Hon’Ble Justice Rajarshi Bharadwaj Date : 28Th February 2024. Appearance: Mr. J. P. Khaitan, Senior Advocate Mr. Somak Basu, Advocate … For The Appellant. Mr. Vipul Kundalia, Advocate Mr. Anurag Roy, Advocate Ms. Oindrila Ghosal, Advocate … For The Respondent. 1. Heard Sri J. P. Khaitan, Learned Senior Advocate Assisted By Sri Somak Basu, Learned Counsel For The Appellant Assessee & Vipul Kundalia, Learned Senior Standing Counsel For The Respondent. 2. This Appeal Was Admitted By This Court By Order Dated 19.08.2011 On Four Substantial Questions Of Law. Learned Counsel For The Appellant Has Stated That The Appellant Does Not Want To Press The Substantial

disallowance of the interest incurred as expenditure, to the extent related to the tax free interest on bonds. Substantial Question of Law No.(2): 20 20. With regard to the substantial question of law no.(2), we find that a co-ordinate Bench of this Court in National Grindlays Bank (supra) and Kanoria Investment Pvt. Ltd. (supra) held that

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

Bench: SUJOY PAUL,NAMAVARAPU RAJESHWAR RAO

section 14A read with Rule 8D as under:- Clause Particulars Amount i Expenditure directly related to exempt income Nil Digitally Signed By:PREM MOHAN CHOUDHARY Signing Date:06.12.2023 16:56:58 Signature Not Verified ITA 163/2018 Page 3 of 8 Disallowance of interest expenditure A. Interest expenditure incurred during the year other then (i) above B. Average Value of Investment

M/S. NATIONAL ACADEMY OF CONSTRUCTION, HYD vs. DY. DIRECTOR OF IT- I, HYD

Bench: P.SAM KOSHY,LAXMI NARAYANA ALISHETTY

disallowed deduction for Unit-I At the outset, the appellant wishes to submit that the CIT(A)-XVIII in assessment year 2007-08, vide order dated 15.10.2010 (refer pages 245 to 262 of the paperbook), while allowing in favor of the appellant, held, that Unit - I of the appellant, located at Khasra No.262Mi, Central Hope Town, Selakui Industrial Area, Tehsil

Commissioner of Income Tax vs. M/s.Kakinada Co-operative Town Bank Limited

Appeals stands disposed of in the

Bench: GODA RAGHURAM,M.S.RAMACHANDRA RAO

disallowing relied upon 4 judgments of Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of CIT Vs. N.C. Budhiraja & Company : (1993) 204 ITR 412 (SC); Cambay Electric Supply Industrial Company Limited Vs. CIT: (1978) 113 ITR 84 (SC), and CIT Vs. Sterling Foods : (1999) 237 ITR 579 (SC) and held that it is income earned on sale of import entitlements

The Commissioner of Income- Tax - V, vs. M/s. Krishnaveni Constructions,

Bench: RAMESH RANGANATHAN,M.SATYANARAYANA MURTHY

Section 143 [3] of the Act which are as under: 1. Disallowance towards R&D Rs.1,18,78,000/- 2. Disallowance of Foreign Exchange loss[FCNR] Rs.1,80

Commissioner of Income Tax - II vs. M/s. Healthware Private Limited

In the result, the order passed by the tribunal

disallowed the deduction claimed under Section 80IA(4)(iv)(c) of the Act and held that computation as per normal provisions of the Act is adopted as tax liability. 3. The assessee thereupon filed an appeal before the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), who by an order dated 10.02.2009 dismissed the appeal preferred by the assessee. The assessee thereupon approached

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 Commissioner of Income Tax IV vs. Praga Tools Limited

Bench: GODA RAGHURAM,N.RAVI SHANKAR

disallowance u/s 80IC was allowed. was right in law in accepting ning part of expenditure relating 1,93,15,643/-, Depreciation of nditure on R&D u/s 35(2) of revenue expenses on scientific 36,344/- to the Baddi Unit or ion u/s 80IC, when the assessee