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

PROGREESIVE CONSTRUCTIONS LIMITED vs. JT. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX

Bench: C.V. BHASKAR REDDY,UJJAL BHUYAN

disallowance under Section 4lB ol' the Act, depreciation on excavator and depreciation on tmc[s. Thereafter, uide the assessmenr order dated 31.03.1997 passed under Section 143(3) read with Section 1a8(sz;) o[ the Act, assessing officer computed t zol trn ltz 5 the total incor,re of the assessee at Rs.2,16,89

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

Bench: P.SAM KOSHY,NARSING RAO NANDIKONDA

89 ,OOO I - and in the said returns, the assessee has claimed deduction of Rs.44,91,17,39 1/- under Section 80-IA of the Act, 196 1 in respect of profits from power generation units of different Villages. In support of deduction, the assesse has filed Form No.lO CCB, dated 27.1L.2OO6, for each unit. During the assessment proceedings

The Commissioner of Income Tax -V, vs. M/S Secunderabad Club

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

Section 80-IB of the Act at ₹ 77,89,40,725/ The assessee manufactures mosquito repellants and has also traded, during the year in aerosols, oil spray, hand pumps, mats and coils. It had claimed deduction u/s 80-IB in respect of three units. The AO stated, in the impugned notice that: “(a) in Para- (i) of notes of unit

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

disallowed by the AO for AY 1997-98 on the ground that the Assessee was following the CCM and the expenditure should have been debited to ITA 210/2003 & connected matters Page 34 of 36 capital work in progress. The CIT (A) referred to AS 2 issued by the ICAI and held that since finance and selling costs are usually excluded

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

Appeals of the Revenue are dismissed

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

disallowed by the AO for AY 1997-98 on the ground that the Assessee was following the CCM and the expenditure should have been debited to ITA 210/2003 & connected matters Page 34 of 36 capital work in progress. The CIT (A) referred to AS 2 issued by the ICAI and held that since finance and selling costs are usually excluded

Commissioner of Income Tax-II vs. Energy Solutions International India Pvt Ltd.,

Bench: J. UMA DEVI,V RAMASUBRAMANIAN

Section 260A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter ‘1961 Act’) had framed the following question, as the substantial question of law: “Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal is justified in law in setting aside the disallowance of Rs.5,89

Commissioner of Income Tax vs. Sri B. Nagendar,

In the result, Tax Appeal is dismissed with a

Bench: CHALLA KODANDA RAM,G.CHANDRAIAH

disallowance of discount of  Rs.29.02 lacs (rounded off) for the prupose of calculation of  deduction under section 80­I and 80HH of the Income Tax  Act, 1961 (the Act for short). Second part has reference to  transport income of Rs.6.22 lacs (rounded off) for similar  benefits. From the record it emerges that during the previous  year   relevant   to   assessment   year   1997­98

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 (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-II vs. M/s.Pact Securities AND Financial Services Ltd

Bench: The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals), The Assessees Had Called In Question The Orders Of Assessing Officer (For Short ‘The A.O.’), Who, While Completing The Assessment For The Relevant Assessment Years Disallowed The Deduction Of The “Lease Equalization” Charges From The Lease Rental Income. The Disallowed Amounts By The Cit (Appeals) In These Appeals Are Of Rs.48,56,224/-, Rs,44,18,245/- & Rs.13,16,123/-.

disallowance made by the lower authorities on the claim of the appellant with regard to the lease equalization account to the extent of Rs.4,35,89,466/-? 2. Whether in law the Tribunal is justified in not appreciating that the appellant being a NBFC had followed the norms required by its regulatory authority namely RBI and hence the claim made

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

disallowed recording that no objections had been raised by the Cross Objector, while marking the said documents. However, the deposition of DW1, through whom these documents were produced and marked, clearly shows otherwise. Hence, it is perspicuous that this finding of the Trial Court was factually incorrect. 85. The third contention of the Cross Objector is regarding the finding

The Commissioner of Income Tax-I vs. Ascend Telecom Infrastructure Private Limited

Bench: RAMESH RANGANATHAN,M.SATYANARAYANA MURTHY

89 taxmann.com 127 [SC], by which Date of Judgment 14-08-2018 I.T.A.No.346/2015 Commissioner of Income Tax & another Vs. M/s Academy of Liberal Education 4/21 the Hon’ble Supreme Court has affirmed the view taken by the Bombay High Court in ‘Commissioner of Income Tax v. Institute of Banking Personnel Selection (IBPS)’ [2003] 131 Taxman 386 [Bom.]. The relevant

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 Commissioner of Income Tax vs. M.Venkata Krishna Mohan

Bench: RAMESH RANGANATHAN,M.SATYANARAYANA MURTHY

Section 143(3) of the Act and the income of the appellant was determined at Rs.84,95,035/-. The assessing Officer (hereinafter „AO‟) came to the conclusion that since the payment of Rs.1 Crore was absent in the earlier license agreement and it was for use of the brand, the expenditure of Rs.1 Crore cannot be related to the business

The Commissioner of Income Tax-IV vs. M/s.Mahaveer Enterprises [I] Ltd

89,000/- while calculating the undisclosed income on the ground that no evidence of income and regular returns were filed for the Block Period Year wise, such conclusion is legally sustainable? (ii) Whether, the Tribunal was justified in restricting the claim of assets as on 31.03.1986 at Rs.2,50,000/- as against Rs.4,50,000/- as confirmed