ANDHRA BANK FINANCIAL SERVICES LIMITED vs. THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-I

Bench: C.V. BHASKAR REDDY,UJJAL BHUYAN

260A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (briefly, 'the Act' hereinafter) against the aforesaid orders of I il I / the Tribur-ral and I'ravt' bcen admitted on the follou'ing substantial qr-re stions ol ia\\ ( l ) Whcthcr orl the facts and in t]rc circunrsrances of tltc' c rrsc, Tribunal was jusrified in holdrng that thc appcll:Lrrt

ANDHRA BANK FINANCIAL SERVICES LTD, HYDERABAD vs. THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-I, HYDERABAD

Bench: C.V. BHASKAR REDDY,UJJAL BHUYAN

260A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (briefly, 'the Act' hereinafter) against the aforesaid orders of I il I / the Tribur-ral and I'ravt' bcen admitted on the follou'ing substantial qr-re stions ol ia\\ ( l ) Whcthcr orl the facts and in t]rc circunrsrances of tltc' c rrsc, Tribunal was jusrified in holdrng that thc appcll:Lrrt

ANDHRA BANK FINANCIAL SERVICES LTD,. HYDERABAD vs. THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-I, HYDERABAD

Bench: C.V. BHASKAR REDDY,UJJAL BHUYAN

260A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (briefly, 'the Act' hereinafter) against the aforesaid orders of I il I / the Tribur-ral and I'ravt' bcen admitted on the follou'ing substantial qr-re stions ol ia\\ ( l ) Whcthcr orl the facts and in t]rc circunrsrances of tltc' c rrsc, Tribunal was jusrified in holdrng that thc appcll:Lrrt

Commissioner of Income Tax, vs. Agricultural Market Committee,

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

260A of the Income Tax Act, 1961, (the IT Act, for brevity), by the Commissioner of Income Tax. These twelve appeals are against the common order passed by Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Visakhapatnam Bench. Therefore, it is convenient to dispose them by a common Judgment. FACTUAL BACKGROUND The following brief fact of the matter is culled out from I.T.T.A.No

Commissioner of Income Tax, Guntur. vs. Agricultural Market Committee, Kangiri.

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

260A of the Income Tax Act, 1961, (the IT Act, for brevity), by the Commissioner of Income Tax. These twelve appeals are against the common order passed by Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Visakhapatnam Bench. Therefore, it is convenient to dispose them by a common Judgment. FACTUAL BACKGROUND The following brief fact of the matter is culled out from I.T.T.A.No

Commissioner of Income Taxd vs. M/sA.,Venjkatarao AND Others

Inasmuch as all that is required is for the settler of the trust to declare that the

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

260A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 („Act‟, for short). The relevant assessment years are 1992- 93 to 1994-95, 2001-02 and 2005-06 to 2007-08. In all the appeals except the appeal in ITA No.722/2007, the following substantial questions of law have been framed: - “(a) Whether the Tribunal was correct in law in confirming the order

SMT. SHANTHA VIDYASAGAR ANNAM vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-4(2) HYDERABAD

In the result, the orders dated 09

Bench: J SREENIVAS RAO,ALOK ARADHE

260A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act) has been fired by thr: assessee against the order. dated 09.O6.2006 passed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Hyderabad Bench A,, Hyderabad (hereinafter referred to as 'the Appellate Tribunar). The subject matter of the appeal pertains to assessment year l_gg7 _gg. The appeal was admitted

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

260A of the Act is barred. To that extent, the Senior Counsel is correct and is well supported by the ratio in S.P.Mansinghka (P) Ltd. The said case arose under Section 55 of the 1922 Act which is the precursor of Section 256(1) of the Act. Ruling on the scope of the said provision, the Division Bench

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

260A of the Act is barred. To that extent, the Senior Counsel is correct and is well supported by the ratio in S.P.Mansinghka (P) Ltd. The said case arose under Section 55 of the 1922 Act which is the precursor of Section 256(1) of the Act. Ruling on the scope of the said provision, the Division Bench

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

260A of the Act is barred. To that extent, the Senior Counsel is correct and is well supported by the ratio in S.P.Mansinghka (P) Ltd. The said case arose under Section 55 of the 1922 Act which is the precursor of Section 256(1) of the Act. Ruling on the scope of the said provision, the Division Bench

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

260A of the Act is barred. To that extent, the Senior Counsel is correct and is well supported by the ratio in S.P.Mansinghka (P) Ltd. The said case arose under Section 55 of the 1922 Act which is the precursor of Section 256(1) of the Act. Ruling on the scope of the said provision, the Division Bench

THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX vs. SRI PINNAMANENI PARANDHAMAIAH

In the result, the appeal is allowed

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

Section 260A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as the Act for short) has been preferred by the assessee against the order dated 13.04.2017 passed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (hereinafter referred to as 'the tribunal' for short). The subject matter of the appeal pertains to the Assessment year 2012-13. The appeal was admitted

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

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

260A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (Act, for short) assail the common order of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (Tribunal, for short) dated 20th February, 2017 in the case of National Housing Bank (respondent- assessee bank, for short) for the Assessment Years 2003-04, 2004-05, 2005-06, 2006-07, 2008-09 and 2009-10. 2. The respondent-assessee

COMM.OF INCOME TAX BANGALORE vs. NAVABHARAT ENTERPRISES HYD

In the result, Income Tax Appeal No

Bench: This Court & Hence Both Appeals Have Been Heard Together & Are Being Decided By This Common Judgment. 2. Sri Ravi Kant, Senior Advocate Assisted By Sri Rahul Agarwal, Advocate Have Appeared On Behalf Of Assessee & Sri Manish Goel, Advocate Has Put In Appearance On Behalf Of Revenue. 3. Revenue'S Appeal Was Admitted On The Following Substantial Questions Of Law:- (1)Whether On The Facts & In The Circumstances Of The Case, Tribunal Was Right In Holding That Authorization For Search

260A of Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as “Act 1961”) have arisen from the same judgment dated 15.9.1999 passed by Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Allahabad Bench 'A', Allahabad(hereinafter referred to as 'Tribunal) in ITA No. 1551(Alld) of 1997 relating to Block period from 1.4.1994 to 28.11.1996. Assessee as well as Commissioner of Income Tax (hereinafter referred

The Commissioner of Income Tax-III vs. Sri Anand Prakash Sanghi

Bench: RAMESH RANGANATHAN,M.SATYANARAYANA MURTHY

260A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 ('Act' for short) challenging the findings of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Cochin Bench in ITA No.509/COCH/2006 dated 20.4.2009 for the assessment year 1999-2000. The following questions of law arise for consideration: “1. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the assessee is exigible to income

PRL COMMR OF INCOME TAX-2, HYDERABAD vs. M/S IJM [INDIA] INFRASTRUCTURE LTD., HYDERABAD

Accordingly, the appeal filed by the revenue is dismissed and the

Bench: T.VINOD KUMAR,M.S.RAMACHANDRA RAO

Section 260A of the Income Tax Act, 1961, (the Act, in brevity) is directed against the order dated 27.7.2016 passed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, “B” Bench, Hyderabad (Tribunal) in ITA Nos.355 & 356/Hyd/2012 for the assessment years 2007-08 and 2008-09. The revenue has raised the following substantial question of law for our consideration. a. Whether

SMT.B.SEETHARATNAM vs. DY.COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX

Bench: P.SAM KOSHY,NARSING RAO NANDIKONDA

Section 260A of the lr come Tax Act'1961 againsttheOrderdatedl4-12-2012passedinlTAllr.446/Hydl2012lCo 7-oottiydlzol2 for the Assessment year 2006-2007 on the fil,: of the lncome Tax Appelllte Tribunal, Hyderabad Bench 'A', Hyderabad' TNCOME TAX TRIBUNAL APPEAL No: 469 0F 2013 Between: AND The Court made the following: COMMON JUDGMENT lncomeTaxTribunalAppealUnderSection2604ofthelcomeTaxAct,l96,l against the order dated

SRI B.DHANUNJAYARAO vs. DY.COMMISSONER OF INCOME TAX

Bench: P.SAM KOSHY,NARSING RAO NANDIKONDA

Section 260A of the lr come Tax Act'1961 againsttheOrderdatedl4-12-2012passedinlTAllr.446/Hydl2012lCo 7-oottiydlzol2 for the Assessment year 2006-2007 on the fil,: of the lncome Tax Appelllte Tribunal, Hyderabad Bench 'A', Hyderabad' TNCOME TAX TRIBUNAL APPEAL No: 469 0F 2013 Between: AND The Court made the following: COMMON JUDGMENT lncomeTaxTribunalAppealUnderSection2604ofthelcomeTaxAct,l96,l against the order dated