Commissioner of Income Tax -II vs. M/S Sri Ramanjaneya Poultry Farm Pvt., Ltd.,

Bench: CHALLA KODANDA RAM,G.CHANDRAIAH

disallows the claim, then plaintiff had appropriate remedy to challenge the said order in an appeal but the plaintiff failed to do so. This suit in view of Section 293 of the Income Tax Act however is not the remedy and the only remedy of the plaintiff was to challenge the Order dated 20.9.2005/27.9.2004 in the appropriate forum

Commissioner of Income tax-V, vs. M/s. INTRACK INC,

9; By Finance Act, 2010, the said provision is substituted by the following: Substituted by the Finance Act, 2010, w.e.f. 01.04.2010. Prior to its substitution, proviso as substituted by the Finance Act, 2008, w.r.e.f. 01.04.2005, read as under: 12 “Provided that where in respect of any such sum, tax has been deducted in any subsequent year, or has been deducted

COMM OF INCOME TAX, HYD vs. M/S. BALAN NATURAL FOOD PRIVATE LTD., HYD

Bench: RAMESH RANGANATHAN,KONGARA VIJAYA LAKSHMI

disallowed the aforesaid amount in terms of Section 14A of the Act. A sum of Rs.3,43,28,658/- being 5% thereof was estimated as expenditure incurred for earning such income. 3. The assessee, thereupon, filed an appeal. The Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) by an order dated 31.05.2011 partly allowed the appeal. Being aggrieved, the revenue as well

THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-III vs. M/S. SOMA ENTERPRISES LTD

The appeal is disposed off accordingly

Bench: The Hon'Ble Mr. Justice Ravi Malimath

disallowed u/s. 40(a)(ia) of the Act as the provisions of Section 11 of the Act was applicable to the assessee? ii. Whether the Tribunal was correct in holding that professional fee of Rs.45,69,998/- paid to Apollo Hospital for managing and running BGS Medical Foundation would not attract Section 194J of the Act and Section

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

disallowed in view Section 14A of the Act 1961. In paragraph 5 of the assessment order the A.O. has given details of investment in public sector bonds from borrowed capitals, which discloses that the investment was made by the assessee in public sector bonds on various dates. The bonds of American Express Bank Limited were purchased between

The Commissioner of Inccome Tax-III vs. Speectra Shares AND Scrips Pvt Ltd

Bench: RAMESH RANGANATHAN,M.SATYANARAYANA MURTHY

disallowed the claim of the assessee to treat the rental income as income from the business. The said view of the Assessing Officer has been confirmed by the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) in Annexure-B order dated 14.03.2006, and by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (for short 'the Tribunal'), vide order dated 24.08.2007. 3.1 The assessee placed strong reliance

The Commissioner of Income Tax-III vs. Smt.Anitha Sanghi

Bench: RAMESH RANGANATHAN,M.SATYANARAYANA MURTHY

disallowance, which is in relationship with Tax exempt income under Section 14A of the Act. In support of aforesaid submissions, reliance has been placed on decision of the Supreme Court in ‘COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX VS. WALFORT SHARE & STOCK BROKERS (P) LTD.’, (2010) 326 ITR 1, ‘GODREJ & BOYCE MANUFACTURING COMPANY LTD. VS. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME

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

The appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: V.V.S.RAO,SANJAY KUMAR

disallowance under Section 36(1)(iii) is uncalled for: (i) ‘CIT-1, Ludhiana Vs. Rakesh Gupta, ITA No.37-2014, dated 2.07.2015. (ii) ‘ACIT Vs. Omax Bikes Limited’ ITA No.1085/Chd/2013 dated 06.08.2015. 9

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

Bench: SUJOY PAUL,NAMAVARAPU RAJESHWAR RAO

disallowance under Section 14A of the Act read with Rule 8D of the Rules cannot exceed the exempt income. In this regard, it would be useful to extract the observations made in Joint Investments Pvt Ltd v. Commissioner of Income Tax, 2015:DHC:1804-DB: “9

The commissioner of Income Tax-I vs. M/s Bhagyanagar Studios

The appeals are disposed of in the manner indicated above

Bench: RAMESH RANGANATHAN,M.SATYANARAYANA MURTHY

9. Section 10B of the Act is a special provision in respect to newly established 100% export oriented undertakings. As per Section 10B(1) of the Act subject to the provisions of the Section, there would be 100% deduction allowable towards profits and gains as are derived by an export oriented undertaking from the export of articles or things

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 - Central vs. M/s. Himagiri Biotech Pvt. Ltd.,

9 general provisions of S.37( 1) for the purpose of allowance or disallowance. The Jurisdictional High Court in the case of CIT vs. Sahara India Corp. Ltd. (supra) reported in 296 ITR 285 held that the Tribunal is not bound to answer a question not raised before it. Hence when the question whether the deduction is allowable

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

Bench: J. UMA DEVI,V RAMASUBRAMANIAN

Section 145 of 9 235 ITR 94 - 19 - ITA No. 383 of 2016 the Act. The ITAT at paragraph 10 of the impugned order has rightly observed as under: “10. In the case in hand, except excess trade liability addition made for the assessment year 2008-09, there was no other basis to arrive at the conclusion that

Commissioner of Income Tax-III vs. Sri N.Sai Baba Naidu

Bench: J SREENIVAS RAO,ALOK ARADHE

Section 24 claimed by the assessee on the footing that the rental income was assessable under the head “income from house property” stood disallowed. The net result was an addition of `52,92,000/-. 3. The assessee filed an appeal to the CIT(Appeals) and reiterated the stand taken by him before the assessing officer. The CIT(Appeals) affirmed

The Prl Commissioner of Income Tax (Exemptions) vs. Institute of Development and Research in Banking Technology

Bench: ABHINAND KUMAR SHAVILI,V RAMASUBRAMANIAN

9. In this appeal we are concerned only with disallowance of deduction on reversal of provision in respect of Rs.5,27,67,000/- and Rs.79,12,000/-. 10. On further appeal, the ITAT, vide order dated August 26, 2016 has dismissed ITA No.1124/Bang/2014. 11. Shri Suryanarayana submitted that: • the AO reopened the case under Section

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

The appeals stand dismissed

Bench: RAMESH RANGANATHAN,M.SATYANARAYANA MURTHY

9. Mr. Mathur has also contended that regarding second issue with regard to ESI and PF, however, the same is covered by the decision of this Court in the case of Commissioner of Income Tax Vs. M/s State Bank of Bikaner & Jaipur- D.B. Income Tax Appeal No.177/2011 decided on 06.01.2014 wherein it has been held as under: “Thus

The Commissioner of Income Tax-III, vs. M/S Sarada Projects Pvt. Ltd,

Appeals stand dismissed accordingly

disallowance made by the AO under section 36(1)(iii) of the IT Act. “ 5.2 Similarly in the case of Raghuvir Synthetics Ltd (supra), this Court has held as under: “9

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

The appeal is disposed of

9 of 16 11. It is also clear from the order passed by the Commissioner under Section 263 that the issue relating to apportionment of common expenditure was specifically gone into and examined by the Assessing Officer, who was fully satisfied with the apportionment made. Thus, it was not a case of “no” inquiry but specific and pointed enquiries