The Commissioner of Income Tax III, vs. M/s. Swagath Seeds Private Limited

Bench: RAMESH RANGANATHAN,M.SATYANARAYANA MURTHY

setting aside disallowance made on account of amounts deposited by cheques to an extent of Rs.84,61,055/- even when the assessee failed to explain the said deposit with proper material? 5 2. The facts giving rise to filing of this appeal briefly stated are that, the assessee files income tax returns for the assessment year 2004-2005 declaring

AVANTI FEEDS LTD., vs. COMMISSIONER OF INCOMETAX

The appeal is dismissed, and the stay petition

Bench: P.SAM KOSHY,SUDDALA CHALAPATHI RAO

disallowance of trading loss and direct the Ld AO to grant set off of alleged loss against the interest/ other

The Principal Commissioner of Income Tax vs. M/s.Midwest Granites Private Limited

Appeal stands dismissed accordingly

Bench: RAMESH RANGANATHAN,KONGARA VIJAYA LAKSHMI

disallowed the claim made under said sections on the basis of material available on record and after application of relevant provisions of the Act? 6. Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, Tribunal is right in law in setting in holding that the provisions of Section 115JB is not - 5 - applicable to the assessee-Bank

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

set aside? (ii) Whether on the facts and circumstances of the case the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal was right in law in sustaining the disallowance of Rs.49,00,000/- being quality loss

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

set aside? (ii) Whether on the facts and circumstances of the case the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal was right in law in sustaining the disallowance of Rs.49,00,000/- being quality loss

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

set aside? (ii) Whether on the facts and circumstances of the case the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal was right in law in sustaining the disallowance of Rs.49,00,000/- being quality loss

THE PRL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX [CENTRAL] HYDERABAD vs. M/S SREE NAGENDRA CONSTRUCTIONS, KHAMMAM

In the result, appeal stands dismissed

Bench: This

setting aside the disallowance of exchange fluctuation loss of Rs.3,63,47,099/- made by the assessing authority even when

Commissioner of Income Tax vs. Agricultural Market Committee

In the result, both the substantial questions

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

disallowance in respect of writing off the debts. It was further held that investment made for equity shares of M/s Gujarat Instruments Ltd., cannot be written off as a revenue loss and the same is a dead loss and therefore, is not allowable. Being aggrieved, the revenue as well as the assessee preferred appeals. The tribunal vide order dated

The Commissioner of Income Tax-I vs. Ascend Telecom Infrastructure Private Limited

Bench: RAMESH RANGANATHAN,M.SATYANARAYANA MURTHY

losses for being set off against the income of the charitable trust for the present Assessment Year, the controversy is covered by the judgment in Commissioner of Income Tax (Exemptions) and another .vs. Ohio University Christ College rendered on 17.07.2018 in ITA.No.312/2016 and ITA No.313/2016, in which this Court held as under: “16. In so far as the second

Sri Rajesh Rawtani vs. The Income Tax Officer

The appeals are disposed off in the above

Bench: P.SAM KOSHY,SUDDALA CHALAPATHI RAO

loss of one project eligible for deduction under Section-80 HHB could not be set of against the profits of other projects eligible under the same provision (arising in ITA 1578/2010 and 278/2010)? 3. Question No.1 – Whether the provisions made claiming deduction for wage revision, allowed by the Tribunal was justified in the circumstances of the case? The assessee, BHEL

The Commissioner of Income Tax IV vs. M/s. Nav Bharat Enterprises Limited

set off the loss of the units in STP from other taxable business income even when the same is not permitted under provisions of IT Act? (2) Whether on the facts and circumstances of the case, the tribunal is right in law in allowing the assessee's claim 3 of depreciation of Rs.17.06,58,039/- on software imported even though

The Commissioner of Income Tax-I vs. M/s. Charminar Breweries Ltd.,

disallowing the claim of loss declared in the retum of income furnished by the assessee. Thus for all these reasons and as the assessee has produced suffrcient material justifying its claim it is held that the entire exercise done by the AO is based on surmises and conjectures and without any evidence. The claim of loss as per the return

M/S.HASTALLOY INDIA LTD vs. DY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX/VIZAG

Bench: GODA RAGHURAM,M.S.RAMACHANDRA RAO

loss should have been set off against income from house property. On over all examination of the nature and merits of specific additions, as would be considered hereinafter, I find substantial force in such allegations of the appellant. Of course, the assessee had presented its annual statement of a/cs in a form peculiar to that prepared and approved under

Commissioner of Income Tax vs. Sri. B. Venkatesam,

The appeal stands disposed of with no order as to

loss?” 7. At the outset, it was submitted by the learned counsel for the parties that the issue involved in question no. 3 was covered, in favour of the assessee and against the revenue, by the decision of Supreme Court in the case of CIT v. Woodward Governor India Private Limited: (2009) 312 ITR 254 (SC). Accordingly, the said question

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

The appeal is dismissed

disallowance by the Assessing Officer of `73,19,800/- claimed by the respondent-assessee on account of loss incurred on ITA No.247/2010 Page 2 of 4 the sale of 49850 shares held by the respondent-assessee in Rail Track India Ltd. and 63000 shares of Evergrowing Iron & Finvest Ltd. 2. It so happened that in the year in question

Kuchipudi Krishna Kishore vs. The DCIT

Accordingly the appeals deserves to be allowed by setting aside the impugned

Bench: P.SAM KOSHY,N.TUKARAMJI

set off the loss from one head against the income from and other head assessable in that year situation, the deduction should have been allowed' 8(c) In support, relied on the authority of Hon'ble Supreme Court in Commisslo ner of lncome Tax' West Bengat-lll v. Raghunandan Prasad Moody - fig7B) 115 ITR 51g (SC) wherein

The Pr. Commissioner of Income-Tax-1 vs. M/s. New River Software System Pvt Ltd.,

The appeals are dismissed

Bench: RAMESH RANGANATHAN,M.SATYANARAYANA MURTHY

loss as being unexplained. Thereafter, in his appeals against the aforesaid additions, as well as in respect of AY 2007-08, the assessee produced the following additional documents under Section 46 of the IT Rules:- “(i) Attested copy of Certificate of Incorporation of M/s Russian Technology Centre Holding Ltd. (ii) Attested copy of Certificate of Incumbency of M/s Russian Technology

The Commissioner of Income Tax-I vs. Adaptec [India] Ltd

The appeals are dismissed

loss as being unexplained. Thereafter, in his appeals against the aforesaid additions, as well as in respect of AY 2007-08, the assessee produced the following additional documents under Section 46 of the IT Rules:- “(i) Attested copy of Certificate of Incorporation of M/s Russian Technology Centre Holding Ltd. (ii) Attested copy of Certificate of Incumbency of M/s Russian Technology