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

Bench: RAMESH RANGANATHAN,M.SATYANARAYANA MURTHY

92,53,033/- as book profit under Section 115JA of the Act. The return was processed under Section 143(1) of the Act resulting in refund of Rs.10,62,37,618/-. Thereafter a notice was issued under Section 143(2) of the Act. The Assessing Officer by an order dated 31.12.2002 inter alia held that since exempted dividend does

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

92,O4,89I/- to Rs.7,57,4U,99'2 l- by invoking the provisions of Section 80-IA(8) ar.rd Section 8O- IA(10) of the Act, 1961 and also observed that tlre Porver Plants, which wer: set up are only for Captive Consurnption and that the APSEB has granted sanction only for the purpose of Captive Consumpt on. Since

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; the As the deduction claimed bY the ass the Act, 1961 from Rs.44,92

Commissioner of IncomeTax-2, vs. Mr. Mustafa Alam Khan,

Appeal is allowed

Bench: SANJAY KUMAR,GUDISEVA SHYAM PRASAD

Section 143(3) of the IT Act for the first two years after acquiring the said rights i.e., for AYs 2003-04 and 2004-05. However, for AY 2005-06 and 2006-07 the proportionate deduction of a sum of `25,23,333/- and `18,92,500/- was claimed, which was disallowed

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

Bench: : The Hon’Ble Justice Surya Prakash Kesarwani & The Hon’Ble Justice Rajarshi Bharadwaj Date : 10Th April, 2024. Appearance: Mr. J. P. Khaitan, Senior Advocate Mr. Sanjay Bhowmick, Advocate Ms. Swapna Das, Advocate … For The Appellant. Ms. Smita Das De, Advocate … For The Respondent. 1. Heard Sri J. P. Khaitan, Learned Senior Advocate Assisted By Sri Sanjay Bhowmick, Learned Counsel For The Appellant/Assessee & Ms. Smita Das De, Learned Senior Standing Counsel For The Respondent. 2. The Assessment Years Involved In The Present Appeal Are Assessment Year 1999-2000 & Assessment Year 2000-01. By Order Dated 16.08.2012, This Appeal Was Admitted On The Following Substantial Questions Of Law :-

92,820/-. The carrying forward of losses was not disputed. 6. Aggrieved with the aforesaid two assessment orders for the assessment years 1999-2000 and 2000-01, the appellant assessee filed two separate appeals before the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) – IX, Mumbai, 6 which both were allowed by order dated 27.12.2010 in which the C.I.T.(A) concluded as under

The Commissioner of Income Tax V vs. Smt. Ch. Uma

92 & 93 of 2014 Dated this the 22nd day of July, 2021 Bechu Kurian Thomas, J. This batch of appeals relates to the assessment years 2004-05 till 2009-10. The issues raised in all these appeals are similar if not identical and hence we heard these appeals together. Except in two appeals, the questions raised are all the same

Commissioner of Income Tax vs. M/s Ch.Veeraju AND co.

92 & 93 of 2014 Dated this the 22nd day of July, 2021 Bechu Kurian Thomas, J. This batch of appeals relates to the assessment years 2004-05 till 2009-10. The issues raised in all these appeals are similar if not identical and hence we heard these appeals together. Except in two appeals, the questions raised are all the same

Commissioner of Income Tax - VI vs. M/s. S.P. Steels

92 & 93 of 2014 Dated this the 22nd day of July, 2021 Bechu Kurian Thomas, J. This batch of appeals relates to the assessment years 2004-05 till 2009-10. The issues raised in all these appeals are similar if not identical and hence we heard these appeals together. Except in two appeals, the questions raised are all the same

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

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

92,017/-. 7. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and have given our thoughtful consideration to the proposition involved. 8. The counsel for appellant submits that this Court has settled the position of law while interpreting Section 80 IA(9) of the IT Act in three recent judgments. The first judgment is M/s Friends Castings

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 as business expenditure. 71. Further as rightly pointed out, AS 2 would apply in terms of which, with ITA 210/2003 & connected matters Page 31 of 36 the Assessee following the CCM, the expenditure incurred subsequent to the completion of the project cannot be attributed to work and had to be allowed only as revenue expenditure. Consequently, the question

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 as business expenditure. 71. Further as rightly pointed out, AS 2 would apply in terms of which, with ITA 210/2003 & connected matters Page 31 of 36 the Assessee following the CCM, the expenditure incurred subsequent to the completion of the project cannot be attributed to work and had to be allowed only as revenue expenditure. Consequently, the question

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

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

Bench: CHALLA KODANDA RAM,G.CHANDRAIAH

92,000.00 Rs.12,96,000.00 Rs.25,66,080.00 3. Rs. 37,08,667 29.01.2000 29.1.2000 – 31.5.01 @ 1% p.m. for 5 months 1.6.01 – 31.5.02 @ 0.75% p.m. for 12 months 1.6.02 – 31.8.04 @ 0.66% p.m. for 27 months Rs.1,85,433.00 Rs.3,33,780.00 Rs.6,66,884.00 4. Rs, 52,96,733 05.03.04 5.3.04 – 31.8.04 @ 0.66% p.m. for 6 months Rs.2

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

Section 271(1) (c). From the reading of the assessment order it is not clear that whether the AO was satisfied even prima facie that this claim is suitable for initiating penalty proceedings. The same, therefore, cannot be sustained. On the point of penalty on disallowance after appreciation of facts and circumstances of the case, no penalty is exigable

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

Section 34(2) of the Act, the learned District Judge has the power to set aside the award on the said ground, and exercise of such power cannot be said to be beyond jurisdiction. The Issue of Escalation of Price of Materials:- 24. The appellant, before the Arbitrator had made a claim of Rs. 28,92,193/- on account

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