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

business of a cooperative society attributable to its banking transactions or credit transactions with members is exempt from income tax. If Section 80P(2)(a) of the Act is given restrictive meaning as including the interest earned only on the statutory deposits made by a cooperative society, it would amount to supplying causus omissus and has to be avoided

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

business of a cooperative society attributable to its banking transactions or credit transactions with members is exempt from income tax. If Section 80P(2)(a) of the Act is given restrictive meaning as including the interest earned only on the statutory deposits made by a cooperative society, it would amount to supplying causus omissus and has to be avoided

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

business of a cooperative society attributable to its banking transactions or credit transactions with members is exempt from income tax. If Section 80P(2)(a) of the Act is given restrictive meaning as including the interest earned only on the statutory deposits made by a cooperative society, it would amount to supplying causus omissus and has to be avoided

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

business of a cooperative society attributable to its banking transactions or credit transactions with members is exempt from income tax. If Section 80P(2)(a) of the Act is given restrictive meaning as including the interest earned only on the statutory deposits made by a cooperative society, it would amount to supplying causus omissus and has to be avoided

The Director of Income Tax, (Exemptions) vs. Royal Education Society

In the result, the appeal is disposed of

Bench: ANIS,SANJAY KUMAR

business of banking by Reserve Bank of India under Banking Regulation Act, 1949. The assessee filed the return of income under Section 143(1) of the Act for the Assessment Year 2007-08 on 31.10.2007 and declared total income of Rs.40,77,27,150/-. However, no order of assessment was passed under Section 143(3) of the Act. The Assessing

PROGREESIVE CONSTRUCTIONS LIMITED vs. JT. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX

Bench: C.V. BHASKAR REDDY,UJJAL BHUYAN

reassessment proceedings, assessing officer noted that in the original assessment proceedings, he had not talcn into account certain items of receips, which should not have been treated as contract income being in the nature of other income not relatable to the contract income. Therefore, those receips were added to the incorne of the assessee. Assessing officer funher found that assessee

The Commissioner of Income Tax -V, vs. M/S Secunderabad Club

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

business as has been prescribed in the provisions of section 80AB. This action of the assessee has resulted in under assessment of other income by Rs. 1,73,09,453/-.” 2. In W.P.(C) 2794/2008 and W.P.(C) 2795/2008 the reassessment

COMMR OF INCOME TAX [TDS], HYDERABAD vs. M/S JAYADARSHINI HOUSING PVT LTD., HYDERABAD

Appeals are hereby dismissed by

Bench: P.SAM KOSHY,NARSING RAO NANDIKONDA

business of software development. For the assessment year 2003-04 return of income was filed on 31.10.2003 declaring income of ` 15,00,92,060/- after claiming deduction of ` 99,67,71,161/- under Section 10A of the Act. Assessment order came to be framed under Section 143(3) of the Act on 27.03.2006. The Assessing Officer reduced the claim

CHENNAKESAVA PHARMACEUTICALS VIJAYAWADA vs. THE COMI.OF INCOMETAX VIJ.

In the result, all the appeals are allowed setting aside the common

Bench: GODA RAGHURAM,M.S.RAMACHANDRA RAO

business of Kohinoor Mills and that there had been concealment of his income on the part of the assessee. The Tribunal, however, gave relief to the assessee in the matter of quantum of penalty. On application made by the assessee, following two questions were referred under Section 256 (1) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 to the High Court

Commissioner of Income Tax, vs. M/S Foods Fats and Fertilisers Limited,

The appeals stand dismissed

Bench: RAMESH RANGANATHAN,M.SATYANARAYANA MURTHY

Income Tax vs. Chetan Gupta reported in [2016] 382 ITR 613 (Delhi) wherein it has been held as under:- “Held accordingly, that no attempt had been made by the Department to serve the assessee at the address provided by him. All the notices were addressed to him at another address C/o. Kiran Cinema. Therefore, this was not a case where

EVEREST ORGANICS LTD vs. THE COMMISSIONER OF I.T., HYDERABAD

Bench: C.V. BHASKAR REDDY,UJJAL BHUYAN

Income Tax (AO) in most indubitable way dictated him to initiate reassessment proceedings. In our view, this letter in unequivocal 30 ITA No.6 of 2005 & other connected matters terms the DDIT (Inv.) has exceeded its general power of superintendence and influenced the mind of the AO. 28. The AO has not applied his mind independently without any bias get further

C. SANYASI RAJU vs. THE ASST. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE, VIZAG.

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

Income Tax (AO) in most indubitable way dictated him to initiate reassessment proceedings. In our view, this letter in unequivocal 30 ITA No.6 of 2005 & other connected matters terms the DDIT (Inv.) has exceeded its general power of superintendence and influenced the mind of the AO. 28. The AO has not applied his mind independently without any bias get further

The Commissioner of Income Tax-III vs. M/s.Samrakshna Electricals Ltd

Bench: RAMESH RANGANATHAN,M.SATYANARAYANA MURTHY

Income Tax (AO) in most indubitable way dictated him to initiate reassessment proceedings. In our view, this letter in unequivocal 30 ITA No.6 of 2005 & other connected matters terms the DDIT (Inv.) has exceeded its general power of superintendence and influenced the mind of the AO. 28. The AO has not applied his mind independently without any bias get further

M/s.GVK Petro Chemicals Private Limited,(Novo Resins AND vs. The Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax,

Income Tax (AO) in most indubitable way dictated him to initiate reassessment proceedings. In our view, this letter in unequivocal 30 ITA No.6 of 2005 & other connected matters terms the DDIT (Inv.) has exceeded its general power of superintendence and influenced the mind of the AO. 28. The AO has not applied his mind independently without any bias get further

The Commissioner of Income Tax-I vs. M/s. Prasad Film Laboratories Ltd.,

business. It is also the submission that the Tribunal considered and assessed a just compensation and an interference by this court is not warranted. 5. In this case, we have perused Exts.A11 and A12 which are the sealed copies of SARAL forms furnished by the deceased. It bears the seal of the Income Tax Department. Ext.A11 pertains to the financial

The Commissioner of Income Tax -III vs. Sri T.C. Reddy

The appeal stands dismissed

business being done in accordance with the rules and bye-laws of the East India Cotton Association, Bombay, that according to bye-law No. 44-A of that Association "every contract made subject to these bye-laws shall take effect as contract wholly made in Bombay", and that further under the rules, the delivery of the goods must take place

The Commissioner of Income Tax-III vs. M/S Sri Krishna Drugs Ltd.,

Bench: C.V. BHASKAR REDDY,UJJAL BHUYAN

business and derived rental income from its commercial building a multi-storied complex let out to various tenants. During the financial year, relevant to assessment year 1992-93, the lease agreement of between the assessee and its tenant Oriental Bank of Commerce, was to expire on 31.03.1991. The premises were not vacated and the assessee filed a civil Suit before

The Commissioner of Income Tax-IV vs. M/s. Meghadoot Drillers,

reassessment or recomputation under Section 147, the Income Tax Officer shall serve on the assessee a notice containing all or any of the requirements which may be included in a notice under Sub-section (2) of Section 139; and the provisions of this Act shall, so far as may be, apply accordingly as if the notice were a notice issued

M/s.CCL Products [India] Limited vs. The Commissioner of Income Tax-I

business premises of the assessee. On the basis of the information received from the Central Excise Department, Commissioner of Income Tax (CIT) vide order dated 20.11.2008 (Annexure A-II) passed under Section 263 of the Act held the order of the Assessing Officer to be erroneous and prejudicial to the interest of the revenue. The CIT set aside the assessment