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

5(b) and (c) read with Section 6 of the BR Act. In so far as the income earned from these deposits is concerned, Section 80P(2)(a)(i) of the Act does not make any difference nor it is possible to read any such limitation having regard to the language of the said provision. Every income “attributable

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

5(b) and (c) read with Section 6 of the BR Act. In so far as the income earned from these deposits is concerned, Section 80P(2)(a)(i) of the Act does not make any difference nor it is possible to read any such limitation having regard to the language of the said provision. Every income “attributable

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

5(b) and (c) read with Section 6 of the BR Act. In so far as the income earned from these deposits is concerned, Section 80P(2)(a)(i) of the Act does not make any difference nor it is possible to read any such limitation having regard to the language of the said provision. Every income “attributable

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

5(b) and (c) read with Section 6 of the BR Act. In so far as the income earned from these deposits is concerned, Section 80P(2)(a)(i) of the Act does not make any difference nor it is possible to read any such limitation having regard to the language of the said provision. Every income “attributable

The Commissioner of Income Tax (Central) vs. Akula Nageswara Rao

In the result, the orders passed by the Assessing

Bench: SANJAY KUMAR,GUDISEVA SHYAM PRASAD

5(2) of the Act. It is pertinent to note that though the aforesaid order could either have been revised by the Commissioner of Commercial Taxes under Section 22-A(2) of the KST Act or could have been challenged by the respondent in a writ petition before this Court. However, the respondent has not chosen to challenge the same

Mr. Vasamsetty Veera Venkata Satyanarayana vs. The Principal Commissioner of Income Tax -1

The appeal is allowed and the order passed

Bench: P.SAM KOSHY,NARSING RAO NANDIKONDA

2) of Section 27, the date gets postposed to the date of reassessment order which was passed on 05.09.2023. 50. At this juncture, it is beneficial to take note of the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in ITC Limited wherein the Hon’ble Supreme Court held that it is apparent from the provisions of refund that

The Commissioner of Income Tax [Central] vs. Smt P Sujana

The appeal stands disposed of as indicated above

Bench: CHALLA KODANDA RAM,G.CHANDRAIAH

5. Learned counsel appearing for the appellant/assessee submitted that the denial of set-off of carry forward of loss relying on Section 80 of the Act by all the authorities is untenable. Admittedly, in the case on hand, the loss for previous year i.e., assessment year 2005-06 has been quantified by the Assessing Officer which pre-supposes the determination

SYED ABBAS MIAH vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER,WARD-I,KURNOOL

2) v. State of Haryana, (2006) 7 SCC 241] cases and all other judgments that follow these pronouncements are to the extent of such reliance overruled. 1159.7. A tax on entry of goods into a local area for use, sale or consumption therein is permissible although similar goods are not produced within the taxing State. 1159.8. Article 304(a) frowns

The Commissioner of Income Tax - III, vs. M/s. Suven Pharmaceuticals Limited,

Appeals are dismissed

reassessment  or recomputation exceeds the tax on the total  income determined [under sub­section (1) of  section 143 or] on the basis of the regular  assessment aforesaid. (4) Where,   as   a   result   of   an   order   under  section 154 or section 155 or section 250 or  section 254 or section 260 or section 262 or  section 263 or section

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 :-

5) last date of filing revised return was 31/03/2001. The last date for issuing notice under section 143(2) was 31/12/2000 which was not issued by the Assessing Officer in spite of filing the revised return and he has chosen to issue notice under section 148 on 10/12/2001. Order under section 143(3) read with section 147 was passed

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

Bench: C.V. BHASKAR REDDY,UJJAL BHUYAN

5 ITA No.6 of 2005 & other connected matters warrant of authorisation issued by the DIT (Inv.) under Section 132A of the IT Act. On 2-3-1995 statement of J.K. Jain was recorded by the DDIT (Inv.) under Section 131 of the IT Act. Letter sent by the DDIT (Inv.), Delhi, to the DCIT (Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax), Special

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

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

5 ITA No.6 of 2005 & other connected matters warrant of authorisation issued by the DIT (Inv.) under Section 132A of the IT Act. On 2-3-1995 statement of J.K. Jain was recorded by the DDIT (Inv.) under Section 131 of the IT Act. Letter sent by the DDIT (Inv.), Delhi, to the DCIT (Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax), Special

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

Bench: RAMESH RANGANATHAN,M.SATYANARAYANA MURTHY

5 ITA No.6 of 2005 & other connected matters warrant of authorisation issued by the DIT (Inv.) under Section 132A of the IT Act. On 2-3-1995 statement of J.K. Jain was recorded by the DDIT (Inv.) under Section 131 of the IT Act. Letter sent by the DDIT (Inv.), Delhi, to the DCIT (Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax), Special

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

5 ITA No.6 of 2005 & other connected matters warrant of authorisation issued by the DIT (Inv.) under Section 132A of the IT Act. On 2-3-1995 statement of J.K. Jain was recorded by the DDIT (Inv.) under Section 131 of the IT Act. Letter sent by the DDIT (Inv.), Delhi, to the DCIT (Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax), Special

M/S NMDC LIMITED vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX

The appeal is allowed

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

2 SCC 114 has observed that while granting permanent alimony, no arithmetic formula can be adopted as there cannot be mathematical exactitude. It shall depend upon the status of the parties, their respective social needs, the financial capacity of the husband and other obligations. For ready reference the relevant paragraph is being quoted as under: 84. We have reproduced

PR COMMR OF INCOME TAX-2, HYDERABAD vs. K RAVINDER REDDY, HYDERABAD

Bench: RAMESH RANGANATHAN,KONGARA VIJAYA LAKSHMI

2. The appellants in these groups of appeals under Section 260A of the Act comprise the General Electric group of companies: GE Energy Parts Inc (“GEP” hereafter); General Electric International Operations Company Inc. (“GEIOC” hereafter); GE India Industrial Pvt. Ltd and (GEIIPL). All challenge a common order of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (“ITAT”) which concluded that the appellant

Commissioner of Income Tax-II vs. M/s.Kalyani Wines

In the result, I find this appeal bereft of merit and accordingly,

Bench: Hon’Ble Mr. Justice Robin Phukan

5 of 60 from the date of filing the arbitration petition U/S 11 of the Act before the Chief Justice of Gauhati High Court till payment is made by the respondent. The amount claimed under different heads and the awarded amount is shown in the Table below:- Sl. No. Different Heads Amounts claimed Amounts awarded A Enhancement of labour wages