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 :-

house property” and deduction in respect of such income has been wrongly claimed under Section 24. Accordingly, he requested the said income to be treated as income under the head “income from business or profession”. He also claimed interest of Rs.60,50,250/- as deductible expenditure being interest paid on loans to financial institutions during the previous year

THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX III, vs. M/S. SAVIJANA SEA FOODS PVT. LTD.,

Appeals of the Revenue are dismissed

Bench: J SREENIVAS RAO,ALOK ARADHE

HOUSING PVT.LTD ...... Respondent Through: Mr. M.S. Syali, Senior Advocate with Mr. Arta Trana Panda and Ms. Gargi Sethee, Advocates. CORAM: JUSTICE S. MURALIDHAR JUSTICE SANJEEV NARULA ITA 210/2003 & connected matters Page 5 of 36 J U D G M E N T Dr. S. Muralidhar, J.: 1. These are 11 appeals under Section 260-A of the Income

Commissioner of Income Tax, vs. M/s. Kokivenkateswara Reddy AND others,

Appeals of the Revenue are dismissed

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

HOUSING PVT.LTD ...... Respondent Through: Mr. M.S. Syali, Senior Advocate with Mr. Arta Trana Panda and Ms. Gargi Sethee, Advocates. CORAM: JUSTICE S. MURALIDHAR JUSTICE SANJEEV NARULA ITA 210/2003 & connected matters Page 5 of 36 J U D G M E N T Dr. S. Muralidhar, J.: 1. These are 11 appeals under Section 260-A of the Income

The Commissioner of Income Tax IV vs. M/s. Nava Bharat Ferro Alloys Ltd.,

house i.e. the suit property and the respondents cannot dictate the terms to the petitioner. Further the respondents jointly and severely have not been able to dispute the fact that the petitioner has been regularly visiting and staying at hotel or that he has set up in India a Private Ltd. Company under the name and style

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

Bench: RAMESH RANGANATHAN,M.SATYANARAYANA MURTHY

House Estate Ltd. illustrate the contrary proposition. There, the property, though dealt with by a company intending to do business, was dealt with as landowner. The intention in those cases was not to derive profit by business done with those properties but to derive .income by renting them out Where a Company acquires properties which it sells or leases

Smt.Sudia Indira vs. The Income Tax Officer

In the result, the appeal from order stand dismissed

set   out   in   the   agreement.     The   first   important   condition   is  condition No.3.   The said condition No.3 makes it clear that the time  limit of the Banakhat i.e. contract of sale was fixed for four months.  Similarly, condition No.4 makes it clear that the payment of sale price  Page 11 of 21 C/AO/442/2012 CAV JUDGEMNT was not dependent on handing over

THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX vs. SRI METTAM PENCHALA NAIDU

Bench: This Court That The 1St Assessment Order Of The Ito Was Passed On 28.03.1988, Which Was Challenged Before The Leaned Cit (A) & The Same Was Dismissed On 28.11.1988. Against The Said Order, The Assessee Filed An Appeal Before The Itat, Cuttack Bench, Cuttack, Which Was Dismissed On 19.01.1990. Thereafter, By Order Dated 13.12.1990 Passed In A Misc. Application, The Order Dated 19.01.1990 Was Recalled & The Matter Was Heard Afresh. Again On 10.05.1991, Learned Tribunal Decided The Matter & Allowed The Exemption To The Assessee. The Revenue Filed Writ Petition Before This Court Challenging The Rectification Order Dated 13.12.1990. This Court On 02.12.1991 Allowed The Writ Petition & Quashed The Recalling Order Dated 13.12.1990 As Well As Its Substantive Order Dated

house property and does not have any brought forward loss under the head; or (iii) “Income from other sources”, except winnings from lottery or income from race horses, [and does not have any loss under the head] be in Form [SAHAJ] (ITR-1) and be verified in the manner indicated therein:] [Provided that the provisions of this clause shall

The Commissioner of Income Tax III,. vs. Sri Sudhir Sanghi

Bench: This Court That The 1St Assessment Order Of The Ito Was Passed On 28.03.1988, Which Was Challenged Before The Leaned Cit (A) & The Same Was Dismissed On 28.11.1988. Against The Said Order, The Assessee Filed An Appeal Before The Itat, Cuttack Bench, Cuttack, Which Was Dismissed On 19.01.1990. Thereafter, By Order Dated 13.12.1990 Passed In A Misc. Application, The Order Dated 19.01.1990 Was Recalled & The Matter Was Heard Afresh. Again On 10.05.1991, Learned Tribunal Decided The Matter & Allowed The Exemption To The Assessee. The Revenue Filed Writ Petition Before This Court Challenging The Rectification Order Dated 13.12.1990. This Court On 02.12.1991 Allowed The Writ Petition & Quashed The Recalling Order Dated 13.12.1990 As Well As Its Substantive Order Dated

house property and does not have any brought forward loss under the head; or (iii) “Income from other sources”, except winnings from lottery or income from race horses, [and does not have any loss under the head] be in Form [SAHAJ] (ITR-1) and be verified in the manner indicated therein:] [Provided that the provisions of this clause shall

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

The Commissioner of Income Tax - IV vs. M/s. Mekins Agro Product (P) Ltd.

setting aside, out of the revenue of an accounting period, the estimated amount by which the capital invested in the asset has expired during that period. It is the provision made for the loss or expense incurred through rising the asset for earning profits, and should, therefore, be charged against those profits as they are earned. " "Ifdepreciation is not provided

Commissioner of Income Tax, vs. Agricultural Market Committee,

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

set up, establish and use any place in the notified area for the purchase, sale, storage or weighment processing or pressing of any notified agricultural produce. Section 12 empowers the market committee to levy fees on agricultural produce, purchase or sale in the notified market area. These monies form the market committee fund and shall have to be spent

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

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

set up, establish and use any place in the notified area for the purchase, sale, storage or weighment processing or pressing of any notified agricultural produce. Section 12 empowers the market committee to levy fees on agricultural produce, purchase or sale in the notified market area. These monies form the market committee fund and shall have to be spent

COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX [TDS], HYDERABAD vs. M/S GHMC, HYDERABAD

In the result, the appeal is disposed of

Bench: RAMESH RANGANATHAN,KONGARA VIJAYA LAKSHMI

SET ASIDE THE ORDER PASSED BY THE ITAT, BANGALORE IN ITA NO.1275/BANG/2014 DATED 08-07-2015 FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2010-11. THIS I.T.A. COMING ON FOR FINAL HEARING, THIS DAY, ALOK ARADHE J., DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: JUDGMENT Mr.Sharath S., learned counsel for the assessee. Mr.K.V.Aravind, learned counsel for the revenue. 2. This appeal under Section

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

Bench: C.V. BHASKAR REDDY,UJJAL BHUYAN

setting-off the losses Thereafter revised return \/as processed under Section 143 of the Act. Assessing officer noted that one entity called 'Fair Growth Financial Services Limited' (referred to hereina-fter as 'Fair Growth') had delivered five bonds to the assessee in discharge of twelve contracts much before the notifled date. However, assessee had not accounted for the accrued interest

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

Bench: C.V. BHASKAR REDDY,UJJAL BHUYAN

setting-off the losses Thereafter revised return \/as processed under Section 143 of the Act. Assessing officer noted that one entity called 'Fair Growth Financial Services Limited' (referred to hereina-fter as 'Fair Growth') had delivered five bonds to the assessee in discharge of twelve contracts much before the notifled date. However, assessee had not accounted for the accrued interest

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

Bench: C.V. BHASKAR REDDY,UJJAL BHUYAN

setting-off the losses Thereafter revised return \/as processed under Section 143 of the Act. Assessing officer noted that one entity called 'Fair Growth Financial Services Limited' (referred to hereina-fter as 'Fair Growth') had delivered five bonds to the assessee in discharge of twelve contracts much before the notifled date. However, assessee had not accounted for the accrued interest

V.C. NANNAPANENI vs. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX,

In the result, the appeals are allowed

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

setting up an industry by a third party, the appellant has suffered as much capital loss as the Natco Pharma Company has suffered and that therefore the appellant cannot be treated differently from Natco Pharma. That further, the Tribunal has erred in assuming that in the absence of proof of existing income there cannot be capital loss, ignoring the position

The Commissioner of Income TAx-IV, vs. M/s. Mahaveer Enterprises (India) Limited

The Appeal is dismissed

Bench: RAMESH RANGANATHAN,M.SATYANARAYANA MURTHY

Housing Society admeasuring 829.25 sq.mtrs. was of the individual ownership of the petitioner Pannaben Niranjan Mehta and was her self-acquired property. Thus the petitioner was the holder of the land in question within the meaning of the said term as envisaged under the provisions of the Act. In the circumstances, as prescribed under Rule 5 of the Rules read