VENKATESWARA HATCHARIES LTD vs. JT COMMISSIONER OF I.T.[ASSTS]

In the result, appeal fails and is hereby dismissed

Bench: J SREENIVAS RAO,ALOK ARADHE

Section 260A of the Income Tax Act, i 96 1 (hereinafter referred to as the Act,) has been preferred by the assessee. The subject matter of the appeal pertains to assessment year 1995-96. Ttre appeal was admitted on following substantial questions.of law: "L. Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the ITAT was correct

Principal Commissioner of Income Tax-1 vs. M/s Sri Sri Gruha Nirman India Pvt. Ltd.

Appeals are dismissed

Bench: P.SAM KOSHY,NARSING RAO NANDIKONDA

disallowed. The Assessing Officer for the Assessment Year 2012-13 also took a stand similar Digitally Signed By:VAISHALI CHAUHAN Signing Date:10.01.2024 15:43:36 Signature Not Verified ITA 1021/2019 & 157/2023 Page 6 of 9 pages to the one pertaining to the Assessment Year 2011-12 as regards addition under Section 40(a)(ia) of the Act, thereby adding

Andhra PRadesh Pradesh Fibres Limited vs. Assistant commissioner of Income Tax

In the result, the order passed by the

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

96,82,930/-. The return was processed under Section 143(1A) of the Act and was rectified under Section 154 of the Act on 27.10.1998. The case was selected for scrutiny. Thereupon notices were issued under Section 143(2) and 143(1) to the assessee. The assessing officer by an order dated 26.03.1999 passed an order of assessment and inter

The Commissioner of Income Tax (Exemptions0 vs. Kalinga Cultural Trust

In the result, we do not find any

Bench: ANIS,SANJAY KUMAR

disallowed the assessee's claim for deduction under Section 10B of the Act. 5. The Assessing Officer inter alia held that assessee is entitled to deduction under Section 10B of the Act only after verification and the contention of the assessee that old machinery from FFIPL was transferred to it only in April 2007 does not deserve acceptance

Principal Commissioner of Income Tax-5 vs. M/s. VBC Industries Limited

In the result, we do not find any

Bench: RAMESH RANGANATHAN,M.SATYANARAYANA MURTHY

disallowed the assessee's claim for deduction under Section 10B of the Act. 5. The Assessing Officer inter alia held that assessee is entitled to deduction under Section 10B of the Act only after verification and the contention of the assessee that old machinery from FFIPL was transferred to it only in April 2007 does not deserve acceptance

Commissioner of Income Tax vs. Agricultural Market Committee

In the result, both the substantial questions

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

96,877/- on 29.10.2001, which was processed under Section 143(1) of the Act on 4 22.03.2002. Thereafter, a notice under Section 143(2) of the Act as well as a questionnaire dated 26.12.2003 along with notices under Section 143(2) and 142(1) were issued. The assessing officer by an order dated 18.03.2004 inter alia held that the assessee

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

disallowance of Rs.52 lakhs was justified as the expenditure did not pertain to the year under consideration. Regarding the quality loss, it was held that assessee could not claim deduction as an expenditure since it did not carry on any manufacturing activity. In the above background, the assessee preferred this appeal under section 260A of the Income

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

disallowance of Rs.52 lakhs was justified as the expenditure did not pertain to the year under consideration. Regarding the quality loss, it was held that assessee could not claim deduction as an expenditure since it did not carry on any manufacturing activity. In the above background, the assessee preferred this appeal under section 260A of the Income

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

disallowance of Rs.52 lakhs was justified as the expenditure did not pertain to the year under consideration. Regarding the quality loss, it was held that assessee could not claim deduction as an expenditure since it did not carry on any manufacturing activity. In the above background, the assessee preferred this appeal under section 260A of the Income

The Commissioner of Income Tax -1 vs. R.S. Sudheesh

disallowed as 'capital loss' and the advances amounting to Rs.2,32,93,575/- given for acquisition of revenue items subsequently written off are held as allowable under Section 37 of the Act as 'current expenses'. 2 (1974) 96

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

96,92,017/-. 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

M/s. Sathavahana Ispat Limited vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax

Bench: P.SAM KOSHY,LAXMI NARAYANA ALISHETTY

disallowed the claim on the ground that as per the lease agreement these maintenance charges were to be borne by the tenants. The CIT(A), however, allowed this claim which view of the CIT(A) was affirmed by the Tribunal as well. 2. In so far as the rentals are concerned, the assessee kept on receiving the interim rent

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 Prl Commissioner of Income Tax [Central] vs. G Sanjay Chowdhary

Bench: CHALLA KODANDA RAM,G.CHANDRAIAH

Section 263 of the Act as they have not been challenged and this is the revenue’s appeal. 3. The appellant contends that the following substantial questions of law arise:- “1. Whether the Hon’ble Member of ITAT erred in law in agreeing with the observations of CIT(A) in restricting the disallowance at Rs. 10,99,631/- against

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

Bench: CHALLA KODANDA RAM,G.CHANDRAIAH

96,023.00 Assessed at Rs.43,69,023.00. Issue necessary forms. Sd/- (Sanjay Gosain) Income Tax Officer, Ward 23(2), N. Delhi Copy to : The Assessee. O/c Sd/- (Sanjay Gosain) Income Tax Officer, Ward 23(2), N. Delhi.” CS(OS) No.713/2006 Page 12 of 14 8. It is not disputed before me on behalf of the plaintiff that when this Order

M/S. A.V.R. AND COMPANY, vs. THE DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CENTRAL CIRCLE,

The appeals are dismissed

Bench: C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY,T.AMARNATH GOUD

disallowance of expenditure incurred towards illegal gratification paid to excise officials en route in the course of transportation of molasses for the assessment years 1996-97, 1997-98 and 1998-99 respectively. 2. The Assessing Officer (for short, 'A.O.') has not allowed the deductions. On the appeals filed by the assessee, the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) reversed the orders

The Commissioner of Income Tax vs. Independent Assemblies of God

Bench: RAMESH RANGANATHAN,M.SATYANARAYANA MURTHY

disallowed. 2. The matter relates to Assessment Year 1997-98. The appellant is engaged in the business of automobile parts. With intent to expand its business outside the country, it incurred travelling and staff expenses outside the country during 1995-96 and 1996-97. The appellant attempted to set up a unit in China. The project could not be materialized

Commissioner of Income Tax vs. Agricultural Market Committee

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

disallowed by the Assessing Officer and after verifying the relevant records. Thus, a finding was recorded that the assessee Shivani Gupta 2024.01.19 12:57 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document ITA No.244 of 2011 and ITA No.512 of 2017 4 2024:PHHC:004741-DB had not furnished any inaccurate particulars and the Assessing Officer as well