The Commissioner of Income Tax(Central) vs. M/s.Madhu Enterprises

Bench: The Learned

90 crores claimed by the Assessee. 7. The Assessee had deposited the consideration in the capital gains account in two tranches – ₹30 crores on 28.07.2011 and ₹60 crores on 29.07.2011. The AO noted that the Assessee had paid a certain amount to a charitable trust/educational society, which, in turn, had paid certain sums to Digitally Signed By:TARUN RANA Signing

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. Biraj Kavar Galada

The appeals are disposed of

Bench: RAMESH RANGANATHAN,M.SATYANARAYANA MURTHY

disallowed? (ii) Whether the provisions of Section 14A of the Act read with Rule 8D of the Income Tax Rules should be made applicable to all pending matters as the same is clarifactory in nature in view of the consistent stands taken by the department? (iii) Whether the tribunal was correct in holding that the estimated expenditure cannot be treated

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

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

90,504/- (c) Besides, there were other items which had been wrongly claimed as expenses and disallowance under Section 14A was not worked

The Commissioner of Income Tax (Central) vs. G Radha Charan Reddy

Bench: RAMESH RANGANATHAN,M.SATYANARAYANA MURTHY

Section 8(f) of the Act and hence the input W.P(C) NO.106 OF 2015 :-4-: tax credit to the tune of Rs.12,90,940/- was disallowed

Commissioner of Income Tax-III., vs. Smt. Chirala Nivedita Reddy

disallowed certain amounts including the exemption claimed under Section 10(29) of the Act, as well as certain categories of income and purchase. (While the matter stood thus, on 17.3.2006, the A.O. issued a reassessment notice, this time alleging that exemption claimed under Section 10(29) was inadmissible. He sought to add back a sum of ₹15,90

The Pr. Commissioner of Income-tax vs. D.L.V. Sridhar

Bench: D.V.S.S.SOMAYAJULU,RAMESH RANGANATHAN

disallowed the entire claim of Rs.1,48,89,090/- under section 10A of the Act. 5. The aforesaid addition was deleted by the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), who observed that the respondent-assessee was maintaining separate accounts for STPI and non-STPI unit, and the Assessing Officer had not been able to point out a single entry in respect

The Commissioner of Income Tax -II vs. M/S Heritage Foods India Limited,

90,432/- on account of interest on borrowed funds paid for pre-operative period used for purchase of machinery by ignoring explanation 8 of section 43(1) ? (ii) Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Hon’ble Income Tax Appellate Tribunal was justified in allowing expenditure relating to the public issue of debentures

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.29,02,192/­ and transport income of Rs.6,22,409/­  made by AO for the purpose of calculation of deduction  under Sections 80I & 80HH of the IT Act and confirmed  by CIT(A) while relying upon its own decisions which  have not reached finality and without considering the  fact   that   such   expenses   incurred   from   the   business

The Commissioner of Income Tax (Central) vs. K. V. Srinivasa Rao

90,00,000/- was to be taken from the debtors; however, this list was incorrect, and there was a difference of ₹ 20- 25 lakhs. A meeting was held to settle the account between Vinod Jain and Pradeep Gupta on 30.01.2013; however, differences could not be resolved. A meeting was scheduled on 14.02.2013 in which Hari Om, father of Pradeep

THE PR COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (CENTRAL) vs. BHAVANASI ANJANEYULU

Appeals are allowed in part

Bench: RAMESH RANGANATHAN,KONGARA VIJAYA LAKSHMI

section 132 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (“Act” for short), assessment order came to be passed whereby the Assessing Officer made certain additions by disallowing of speed money claimed as labour charges paid through sub- - 17 - contractors. Being aggrieved, the assessee preferred appeals before the CIT (A). The said authority partly allowed the appeals vide order dated 10.07.2015, against

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. M/S Sri Ramanjaneya Poultry Farm Pvt., Ltd.,

Bench: CHALLA KODANDA RAM,G.CHANDRAIAH

90,67,264 Rs.3,49,24,636.00 Interest U/s 244-A Rs.1,78,94,256.00 TOTAL REFUND DUE TO THE ASSESSEE Rs.5,28,18,892.00 The above amount is calculated as per the information available in the records and subject to the verification of the payment made by the assessee. CS(OS) No.713/2006 Page 11 of 14 Sd/- (Sanjay Gosain

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.

90,100/- (more than 10%) number of equity shares ? We have heard Ms. Smita Das De, learned standing counsel for the appellant/revenue and Mr. Siddhartha Das, learned Advocate appearing for the respondent/assessee. It is not disputed before us that identical issue was considered by us in the assessee’s own case in ITAT No.153 of 2017 dated 17th November

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-II vs. M/s.Kalyani Wines

In the result, I find this appeal bereft of merit and accordingly,

Bench: Hon’Ble Mr. Justice Robin Phukan

disallows any future claims for escalation is conclusive and binding on the parties. If the clause debarring future claims permits escalation subject to certain conditions, no claim is admissible if the conditions are not satisfied. However, if the conditions are satisfied, the Contractor will have a right to claim escalation. This is a contractual right. The right originates and subsists

The Commissioner of Income Tax -III vs. Sri T.C. Reddy

The appeal stands dismissed

disallowance of said sum in the hands of the assessee is not justified. 21. "The total consideration paid by the assessee company to acquire 134.3 bighas of land as per the submission of AR is Rs. 119527000/- which includes Rs.75967000/- paid to M/s Mrigiya Electronics Inds. Pvt. Ltd. And balance to the land owners direclty. The AO has considered direct