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

The appeal is disposed of

disallow the deduction as claimed by the assessee under Section 80IB(10) of the Act and to carry out the assessment 5 afresh in accordance with law after affording an opportunity of hearing to the assessee. 3. Being aggrieved, the assessee filed an appeal before the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Tribunal’, for short). The Tribunal

The Commissioner of Income tax - III, vs. M/s. Namala Estates,

In the result, we do not find any merit in the

Bench: RAMESH RANGANATHAN,M.SATYANARAYANA MURTHY

disallowed a portion of deduction claimed under Section 80IB of the Act to the extent of Rs.8,54,05,964/-. The Assessing Officer determined the total income of the assessee at Rs.41,87

Commissioner of Income Tax vs. Sri. B. Venkatesam,

The appeal stands disposed of with no order as to

disallowance of `1,64,87,375 - disputed additional customs duty claimed by the assessee as a part of the landed cost of goods. 8. The facts, relevant to the question of deduction on account of additional customs duty, briefly stated are as follows: The appellant is, interalia, engaged in manufacturing and trading of products like de-oiled meals, industrial hard

The Principal Commissioner of Income Tax-IV vs. M/s.Parexel International [India] Pvt Ltd

Appeal stands dismissed and the substantial questions of law are answered against the

Bench: : The Hon’Ble Justice T.S. Sivagnanam & The Hon’Ble Justice Hiranmay Bhattacharyya Date : 10Th May, 2022. Appearance:- Ms. Smita Das De, Adv.

87,00,000/- made by the Assessing Officer on account of deemed dividend income under section 2(22)(e) of the said Act ? 2 ii) Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Learned Tribunal was justified in law in accepting that the registered shareholding of the assessee company is Rs.10,99,300/- shares only

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 [Central] vs. M/s.GVPR Engineers Ltd

The appeal is dismissed

Bench: RAMESH RANGANATHAN,M.SATYANARAYANA MURTHY

Section 260A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the said Act’) is directed against the order passed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal in ITA 1808/Del/2012 pertaining to the assessment year 2008-09. ITA 546/2013 Page 2 of 9 2. The substantial question of law, which arises for our consideration in this appeal, is as follows

The Commissioner of Income Tax-II vs. The Andhra Bank Employees Co.Operative Bank Limited

In the result, for the above reasons, these appeals fail and

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

Section 80P(2)(a)(i) of the Income-tax Act. The assessing officer, namely, the Deputy Commissioner of Income-tax took up the return for scrutiny and found that the assessee had Rs.61,87,16,546/- as statutory reserve invested in short term and long term deposits. During the assessment year the interest income from the deposits stood at Rs.7

Commissioner of Income Tax -II vs. The Agrasen Coop. Urban Bank Ltd.,

In the result, for the above reasons, these appeals fail and

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

Section 80P(2)(a)(i) of the Income-tax Act. The assessing officer, namely, the Deputy Commissioner of Income-tax took up the return for scrutiny and found that the assessee had Rs.61,87,16,546/- as statutory reserve invested in short term and long term deposits. During the assessment year the interest income from the deposits stood at Rs.7

COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-II, HYDERABAD vs. M/s. The A.P.Vardhaman(Mahila)Cooperative Urban

In the result, for the above reasons, these appeals fail and

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

Section 80P(2)(a)(i) of the Income-tax Act. The assessing officer, namely, the Deputy Commissioner of Income-tax took up the return for scrutiny and found that the assessee had Rs.61,87,16,546/- as statutory reserve invested in short term and long term deposits. During the assessment year the interest income from the deposits stood at Rs.7

Commissioner of Income Tax-II, vs. M/S The A.P.Mahesh Coop. Urban Bank Ltd,

In the result, for the above reasons, these appeals fail and

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

Section 80P(2)(a)(i) of the Income-tax Act. The assessing officer, namely, the Deputy Commissioner of Income-tax took up the return for scrutiny and found that the assessee had Rs.61,87,16,546/- as statutory reserve invested in short term and long term deposits. During the assessment year the interest income from the deposits stood at Rs.7

Commissioner of Income Tax, vs. M/s Polisetty Somasundaram,

disallowed being not admissible as per provisions of the IT Act. (8) An addition of Rs.5,00,000/- is made out of total Foreign Travelling Expenses of Rs.9,87,601/- in its P & L Account as no AJAY PRASHER 2023.04.10 11:34 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document ITA No.140 of 2013 (O&M) -3- evidence

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

Section 194-I of the Act, the liability to deduct TDS is on the tenant paying the rent. The amount passed on to the owners by the Assessee was not its capacity as tenant. It is further pointed out that for AY 1998-99 the Revenue accepted the order of the CIT (A) by not filing any further appeal. This

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

Appeals of the Revenue are dismissed

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

Section 194-I of the Act, the liability to deduct TDS is on the tenant paying the rent. The amount passed on to the owners by the Assessee was not its capacity as tenant. It is further pointed out that for AY 1998-99 the Revenue accepted the order of the CIT (A) by not filing any further appeal. This

The commissioner of Income Tax vs. M/s.M.Narayana Choudary and Others

In the result, for the above reasons, we set aside the orders

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

87, 88, 106, 108, 118, 119, 126, 128, 129, 131, 137, 141, 143, 147, 151, 167, 169, 170, 171, 172, 176, 179, 183, 185, 187, 188, 193, 194, 197, 206, 208, 210, 227, 240, 253, 259, 272, 278, 294, 302, 304, 305, 309, 314, 333 of 2003; INCOME TAX TRIBUNAL APPEAL Nos.74, 126 of 2004; and INCOME TAX TRIBUNAL APPEAL

Commissioner of Income Tax, vs. M/s Y.Ramakrishna and Others

In the result, for the above reasons, we set aside the orders

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

87, 88, 106, 108, 118, 119, 126, 128, 129, 131, 137, 141, 143, 147, 151, 167, 169, 170, 171, 172, 176, 179, 183, 185, 187, 188, 193, 194, 197, 206, 208, 210, 227, 240, 253, 259, 272, 278, 294, 302, 304, 305, 309, 314, 333 of 2003; INCOME TAX TRIBUNAL APPEAL Nos.74, 126 of 2004; and INCOME TAX TRIBUNAL APPEAL

Commissioner of Income Tax, Rajahmundry. vs. m/s Ganesh Arrack Contractors,

In the result, for the above reasons, we set aside the orders

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

87, 88, 106, 108, 118, 119, 126, 128, 129, 131, 137, 141, 143, 147, 151, 167, 169, 170, 171, 172, 176, 179, 183, 185, 187, 188, 193, 194, 197, 206, 208, 210, 227, 240, 253, 259, 272, 278, 294, 302, 304, 305, 309, 314, 333 of 2003; INCOME TAX TRIBUNAL APPEAL Nos.74, 126 of 2004; and INCOME TAX TRIBUNAL APPEAL

The Commissioner of Income Tax vs. M/s GRK Prasad AND others

In the result, for the above reasons, we set aside the orders

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

87, 88, 106, 108, 118, 119, 126, 128, 129, 131, 137, 141, 143, 147, 151, 167, 169, 170, 171, 172, 176, 179, 183, 185, 187, 188, 193, 194, 197, 206, 208, 210, 227, 240, 253, 259, 272, 278, 294, 302, 304, 305, 309, 314, 333 of 2003; INCOME TAX TRIBUNAL APPEAL Nos.74, 126 of 2004; and INCOME TAX TRIBUNAL APPEAL

The Commissioner of Income Tax-II vs. m/S.M.Ventakteswara Rao AND Others

In the result, for the above reasons, we set aside the orders

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

87, 88, 106, 108, 118, 119, 126, 128, 129, 131, 137, 141, 143, 147, 151, 167, 169, 170, 171, 172, 176, 179, 183, 185, 187, 188, 193, 194, 197, 206, 208, 210, 227, 240, 253, 259, 272, 278, 294, 302, 304, 305, 309, 314, 333 of 2003; INCOME TAX TRIBUNAL APPEAL Nos.74, 126 of 2004; and INCOME TAX TRIBUNAL APPEAL