The Commissioner of Income Tax - Central vs. M/s. Himagiri Biotech Pvt. Ltd.,

disallowance can be made.” 9. It is argued by the revenue that ITAT has failed to appreciate that for the claim of interest, it is necessary that, firstly, the money ITA Nos.512/2013, 516/2013, 517/2013, 518/2013, 519/2013 & 526/2013 Page 10 must have been borrowed by the assessee, secondly, it must have been borrowed for the purpose of business and thirdly

The Commisioner of Income TAx-1 vs. Divya Shakti Granites Ltd.,

Bench: RAMESH RANGANATHAN,M.SATYANARAYANA MURTHY

95 of 1964 Act. 9.2 Mr.Patil’s contention that condition No.8 of Exs.P2/P4 is in the nature of stand-alone obligation whereunder, the plaintiff should have paid second installment of - 28 - RFA No.178 OF 2015 C/W RFA CROB NO.19 OF 2015 Rs.34,80,000/- so that the 1st defendant could have handed over all original documents of title along with

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 :-

95,443/- on the ground that the hotel was leased vide agreement dated 01.11.1998 and thus was put to use for less than 180 days during the previous year. Facts of Assessment Year 2000-01 5. For the assessment year 2000-01, the assessee filed original return on 30.11.2000 disclosing Rs.31,50,000/- income under the head “income from house

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

95,66,643/- was disallowed by the assessing officer on the ground that the assessee did not obtain prior approval in respect of investments against statutory reserves as required under Section

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

95,66,643/- was disallowed by the assessing officer on the ground that the assessee did not obtain prior approval in respect of investments against statutory reserves as required under Section

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

95,66,643/- was disallowed by the assessing officer on the ground that the assessee did not obtain prior approval in respect of investments against statutory reserves as required under Section

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

95,66,643/- was disallowed by the assessing officer on the ground that the assessee did not obtain prior approval in respect of investments against statutory reserves as required under Section

Commissioner of Income Tax-III vs. Sigma Constructions

In the result, the appeal is dismissed

95,853/- being TDS payment made on behalf of sales promoters eventhough the assessee had not substantiated its claim as required under the provisions of the IT Act. 2. Whether, on the facts and circumstances of the case, the Tribunal is right in law in holding that assessee is eligible for deduction of the claim of provision of expenditure/liability

THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-IV vs. M/S QUALITY CARE INDIA LTD

Bench: A.SHANKAR NARAYANA,V RAMASUBRAMANIAN

95,180/-. The return was processed under Section 143(1) of the Act. 4. Subsequently, there was a search and seizure operation under Section 132, as a consequence of which, proceedings were initiated under Section 153A. The assessment was completed under Section 143(3) r/w Section 153A. After completion of the assessment, the Assessing Officer reopened the assessment under Section

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 (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

95-96 (S.A.No.2/9/98/1-IT) Tax on the above Rs.17,22,608.00 Less : Tax paid U/s 143(1)(a) Rs. 5,85,506.00 -------------------- Balance Rs.11,37,102.00 Demand U/s 143(1)(a) Rs. 8,60,977.00 -------------------- Demand for Asstt Year 1995-96 Rs.19,98,079.00 Add : Demand Outstanding for the Previous Asstt. Years Avs DEMAND Interest

The Commissioner of Income Tax-III vs. M/s.Regency Ceramics Ltd

The appeal is dismissed

Section 260A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 has been preferred by the Revenue, being aggrieved by the order dated 19.06.2009 passed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal in ITA No. 967/DEL/2008 pertaining to the assessment year 2005-06. The issue that has been raised in this appeal pertains to the initial disallowance by the Assessing Officer

Commissioner of Income Tax II vs. P. Govinda Rao

The appeals are dismissed

Bench: Us. For Convenience We Are Noticing The Facts Of Appeal Bearing D.B. Income Tax Appeal No.67/2007, Rajasthan Art Emporium V. Dcit, Circle, Jodhpur.

95,553/- was filed by the assessee on 3.2.1994. The Assessing Officer determined the same as of Rs.13,18,320/- by arriving at the conclusion that no satisfactory explanation is given to divert the business funds to an associate concern without interest, as such, the interest free advance is not allowable. While making assessment as per Section

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-IV vs. M/s.Mahaveer Enterprises [I] Ltd

95,641/-, 1,96,186/- & 3,13,278/- claimed in the case of Shri Kapoor chand Khandelwal, Shri Vishnu Kumar Khandelwal & Hari Om Gupta which is supported with evidence. Hence considering the activities of the assessee prior to the block period and capital of other brothers of the assessee the claim is reasonable and should be accepted.” “16. We have

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

95,000/- (Rupees Thirty One Lakhs Ninety Five Thousand Only) leaving a balance of Rs.22,17,257/- (Rupees Twenty Two Lakhs Seventeen Thousand Two Hundred and Fifty Seven Only). For realization of this balance of amount, the 1st defendant has already instituted a suit as O.S.No. 103/2009 before the Sub Court of Thiruvananthapuram, against the plaintiffs, wherein all the details

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

The appeal stands dismissed

95,27,000/- without any justification for the same. ii. Whether the tribunal was justified in deleting the addition of Rs.15,19,340/- being commission paid by it to M/s. Mrigiya Electronics Industries Private Limited for giving accommodation entries, when it was deposed by it’s Director that the company was involved in providing accommodation entries after charging commission