The Commissioner of Income Tax vs. M.Venkata Krishna Mohan

Bench: RAMESH RANGANATHAN,M.SATYANARAYANA MURTHY

gained under the second license agreement and without any payment whatsoever, the word “HILTON” was used. Thus, he submits that the ITAT and AO were right in holding that the expenditure is a capital expenditure and the deduction is not liable to be allowed. Analysis and Findings Capital expenditure and Revenue expenditure - Tests 16. There is exhaustive case

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

Bench: RAMESH RANGANATHAN,M.SATYANARAYANA MURTHY

capital gains tax, etc., the official figure should be lesser. In a sense, to that extent, it is a case of tax avoidance which is culpable both legally and morally. One cannot gainfully argue that it is a case of tax planning, intent being corrupt. However, that has been done at the instance of the 1st defendant, at whose hands

The Commissoner of Income Tax I , vs. M/s. Alpha Thought Technologies P Ltd.,

In the result, the orders passed by the

Bench: RAMESH RANGANATHAN,M.SATYANARAYANA MURTHY

short) have been preferred by the assessee. I.T.A.No.191/2011 pertains to Assessment year 2005- 06, whereas, I.T.A.No.32/2012 pertains to Assessment year 2006-07. Since, the substantial questions of law which arise for consideration in these appeals are similar, therefore, they were heard analogously and are being decided by this common judgment. 2. I.T.A.No.191/2011 was admitted by a bench

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

Principal Commissioner of Income Tax vs. M/s Nara Constructions,

Bench: CHALLA KODANDA RAM,C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY

short) for the Assessment Years 2003-04, 2004-05, 2005-06, 2006-07, 2008-09 and 2009-10. 2. The respondent-assessee bank is wholly owned by the Reserve Bank of India. ITA No. 625/2017+connected Page 2 of 16 3. The respondent-assessee bank has been accused by the Revenue of concealment or furnishing inaccurate particulars, by making

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

short term and long term deposits. During the assessment year the interest income from the deposits stood at Rs.7,02,69,336/-. This was claimed as deduction being interest from the business of banking. Out of this, an amount of Rs.6,95,66,643/- was disallowed by the assessing officer on the ground that the assessee did not obtain prior

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

short term and long term deposits. During the assessment year the interest income from the deposits stood at Rs.7,02,69,336/-. This was claimed as deduction being interest from the business of banking. Out of this, an amount of Rs.6,95,66,643/- was disallowed by the assessing officer on the ground that the assessee did not obtain prior

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

short term and long term deposits. During the assessment year the interest income from the deposits stood at Rs.7,02,69,336/-. This was claimed as deduction being interest from the business of banking. Out of this, an amount of Rs.6,95,66,643/- was disallowed by the assessing officer on the ground that the assessee did not obtain prior

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

short term and long term deposits. During the assessment year the interest income from the deposits stood at Rs.7,02,69,336/-. This was claimed as deduction being interest from the business of banking. Out of this, an amount of Rs.6,95,66,643/- was disallowed by the assessing officer on the ground that the assessee did not obtain prior

COMM OF INCOME TAX, HYD vs. M/S. BALAN NATURAL FOOD PRIVATE LTD., HYD

Bench: RAMESH RANGANATHAN,KONGARA VIJAYA LAKSHMI

disallowed the aforesaid amount in terms of Section 14A of the Act. A sum of Rs.3,43,28,658/- being 5% thereof was estimated as expenditure incurred for earning such income. 3. The assessee, thereupon, filed an appeal. The Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) by an order dated 31.05.2011 partly allowed the appeal. Being aggrieved, the revenue as well

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

In the result, appeal stands dismissed

Bench: This

short] dated 18.03.2016 passed in ITA No.373/Bang/2015 relating to the assessment year 2010-11. 2. The appeal was admitted to consider the following substantial questions of law: “1. Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal is right in setting aside the disallowance made under section 35-D of the Act by the assessing authority

Commissioner of Income Tax vs. M/s.Kakinada Co-operative Town Bank Limited

Appeals stands disposed of in the

Bench: GODA RAGHURAM,M.S.RAMACHANDRA RAO

short,'CIT(A)') who upheld the findings of the AO and rejected claim of the assessee. 5. Both, the Revenue as well as assessee filed cross appeals before the Tribunal. The Tribunal, in so far as the assessee's appeal is concerned, partly allowed the same and rejected the appeal of the Revenue. In so far as the issue relating

The Commissioner of Inccome Tax-III vs. Speectra Shares AND Scrips Pvt Ltd

Bench: RAMESH RANGANATHAN,M.SATYANARAYANA MURTHY

disallowed the claim of the assessee to treat the rental income as income from the business. The said view of the Assessing Officer has been confirmed by the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) in Annexure-B order dated 14.03.2006, and by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (for short 'the Tribunal'), vide order dated 24.08.2007. 3.1 The assessee placed strong reliance

The Commissioner of Income Tax- I vs. M/s. Avon Organics Limited

Bench: GODA RAGHURAM,M.S.RAMACHANDRA RAO

short) and the appellant company. Under the said agreement, the appellant assessee was entitled to use to use the premises taken on lease by M/s Agilis, during 2000 hrs to 0800 hrs. It stipulated that the appellant assessee was entitled to use personal computers of M/s Agilis or install their new personal computers in the premises, but upon termination

COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX vs. M/S K.VENKATESWARA RAO

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

disallowances made by the Assessing Officer, the apepllant preferred first appeal before the learned CIT(Appeals) who granted partial relief to the appellant. 2.1 Being aggrieved by the order passed by the learned Page 2 of 14 O/TAXAP/186/2003 JUDGMENT CIT(A) the appellant as well as respondent preferred appeals before the Tribunal, Ahmedabad Bench. The Tribunal vide impugned orders dismissed

The Commissioner of Income- Tax - V, vs. M/s. Krishnaveni Constructions,

Bench: RAMESH RANGANATHAN,M.SATYANARAYANA MURTHY

short ‘the Act’) when the interest would not have been payable to banks, if funds were not provided to subsidiaries?,” the Hon’ble - 12 - Apex Court held that, the issue raises a pure question of fact. The High Court has noted the finding of the Tribunal that the interest free funds available to the assessee were sufficient to meet