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

Appeals of the Revenue are dismissed

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

income on the ground that the loan raised from the Bank by the Assessee was given to its sister concern without charging interest. The ITAT, however, deleted the addition. 64. The facts in brief for AY 1997-98 were that the interest amount of Rs.32225676 comprised the following  “Rs.1,07,91,828/- on CC limit, paid to IndusInd Bank

Principal Commissioner of Income Tax-2 vs. M/s Indur Green Power Private Limited

In the result, all the appeals fail and are hereby

Bench: RAMESH RANGANATHAN,M.SATYANARAYANA MURTHY

Income and Expenditure Account ascertained by one or more property qualified Auditor/s. X. If upon a winding up or the dissolution of the Company, there are remains after the satisfaction of all the debts and liabilities, any property whatsoever, the same shall not be distributed amongst the members of the Company but, shall be given or transferred to such other

Commissioner of Income Tax (TDS), vs. M/s Country Club Inda Limited

Section 1. Assignment and Assumption. Assignor hereby assigns to the Assignee all the rights, entitlements, covenants and obligations of the Assignor under the Equipment Contract to sell, supply and deliver the Equipment to the Purchaser under the Equipment Contract and the Assignee hereby assumes, and agrees with all of the parties hereto, to perform, observe and be bound by each

Commissioner of Income Tax-II vs. Sri B.Ramanarayanba Rao

Bench: : The Hon’Ble Justice Surya Prakash Kesarwani & The Hon’Ble Justice Rajarshi Bharadwaj Date : 12Th December, 2023 Appearance: Ms. Anupa Banerjee, Adv. …For The Appellant. Mr. Amit Sharma, Adv. ...For The Respondent. 1. Supplementary Paper Book Filed Today By The Assessee Is Taken On Record. 2. Heard Ms. Anupa Banerjee, Learned Counsel For The Appellant/Assessee & Mr. Amit Sharma, Learned Standing Counsel For The Respondent/Income Tax Department. Facts: 3. Briefly Stated Facts Of The Present Case Are That The Assessee Is Engaged In Trading (Export & Domestic) Of

68,900/- which was introduced as capital in the business. Out of the aforesaid jewellery, the assessee sold jewellery valued at Rs.9,00,000/- to M/s. Bhootnath Jewelers (P) Limited and received two cheques of State Bank of India, Burrabazar Branch, Kolkata being cheque no.572020 of Rs.5,00,000/- dated 17th January, 2005 and another cheque no.572022 of Rs.4

Commissioner of Incometax-1, Hyderabad vs. M/s. Divis Laboratories Ltd.,

The appeals are allowed

business under the name and style of M/s Heena Knitwears with its premises at Kachighati, Shimla. 3) For the assessment year 1994-95 and 1995-96, she did not file her regular return of income. 4) Notices were issued to her on 03.09.1996 and 08.08.1996 respectively under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 for the said assessment years

Commissioner of Income Tax -II vs. M/S Sri Ramanjaneya Poultry Farm Pvt., Ltd.,

Bench: CHALLA KODANDA RAM,G.CHANDRAIAH

business premises of the plaintiff, who is the proprietor of CS(OS) No.713/2006 Page 2 of 14 his firm M/s Foto Traders. In terms of the search and seizure operation, total silver of 7003.859 kgs (222 bars) was seized from the plaintiff alongwith cash of Rs.49,86,500/-. The seized silver was valued at Rs.4,44,66,395/- at that

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

business or profession ". Net receipt after deducting all the necessary expenditure of the trust (sic). There is a broad agreement on this proposition. But still the contention for the Revenue is that the depreciation allowance being a notional income (expenditure ?) cannot be allowed to be debited to the expenditure account of the trust. This contention appears to proceed

The Commissioner of Income Tax-III, Hyderabad vs. M/s. Vasant Intermediates Private Limited

The appeal is dismissed

Bench: The Hon’Ble Mr.Justice Ashok S. Kinagi

business, etc. There were serious difference amongst the brothers with regard to discharge of debts and other liabilities which resulted in executing release deed in favour of Late Munipapaiah by the remaining brothers. The said release deed was registered on 06.01.1936. After the execution of the release deed, Munipapaiah took over the charge and managed the entire properties

The Pr. Commissioner of Income-Tax-1 vs. M/s. New River Software System Pvt Ltd.,

The appeals are dismissed

Bench: RAMESH RANGANATHAN,M.SATYANARAYANA MURTHY

sections 68 and 69 of the Act. In consideration of all these observations, we are inclined to hold that the share application money as raised in the grounds of appeal ITA Nos.547/2013 & other connected matters Page 9 of 13 cannot be held as non-genuine and added as income of the assessee u/s 68 of the Act. Consequently, additions made

The Commissioner of Income Tax-I vs. Adaptec [India] Ltd

The appeals are dismissed

sections 68 and 69 of the Act. In consideration of all these observations, we are inclined to hold that the share application money as raised in the grounds of appeal ITA Nos.547/2013 & other connected matters Page 9 of 13 cannot be held as non-genuine and added as income of the assessee u/s 68 of the Act. Consequently, additions made

Commissioner of Income Tax vs. Dr. T.Ravi Kumar

The appeal is disposed of

68,569 78,20,892 58,17,89,461 Less: 15% set apart for application to charitable or religious purpose Balance 85% to be applied 87,268,419 494,521,042 Less: Application of Income Expenses (excluding business activity and Depreciation) Expenditure as per Income and Expenditure Account-Donation Less: Capital Expenditure

The Commissioner of Income Tax-III vs. M/s.Visakha Industries Ltd

The Appeal is dismissed

Bench: RAMESH RANGANATHAN,M.SATYANARAYANA MURTHY

business concerns, from which source amounts were remitted to India, was furnished ITA.No.283 of 2010 6 to the Assessing Officer by Dr.K.P.Ali, along with his confirmation of the remittances. The fact that in the previous assessment year Rs.2,22,13,020/- was remitted by Dr.K.P.Ali in the account of the appellant and the same was accepted after verifying

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

In the result, the appeals are allowed

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

68,625/- and in the process of determination, the said officer has included a sum of Rs.1,50,00,000/- received by the appellant from Ranbaxy Laboratories Limited (hereinafter referred to as “RLL”) towards “non-competition fee” included under the head “income from other sources” and treated it as revenue receipt and accordingly subjected the same to tax. As regards

Gland Celsus Bio Chemicals Pvt. Ltd. vs. The Additional Commissioner of Income- tax

Appeals stand dismissed

Bench: P.SAM KOSHY,NARSING RAO NANDIKONDA

INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, A BENCH, BANGALORE, AS SOUGHT FOR, IN THE RESPONDENT-ASSESSEES CASE, IN APPEAL PROCEEDINGS IN IT(IT)A No.367/BANG/2020 FOR A.Y 2016-17 (ANNEXURE-A). THESE APPEALS COMING ON FOR ORDERS THIS DAY, JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S.G.PANDIT and HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE K. V. ARAVIND

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

Bench: C.V. BHASKAR REDDY,UJJAL BHUYAN

business it frames charges, and on the basis of its investigation into them passes an order revoking the licence. 52. Mr. Kagzi has highlighted that the scheme of statute like this put emphasis on functional separation as against the structural separation within the same agency body. In our opinion when the Statute confers the authority with such dual function

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

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

business it frames charges, and on the basis of its investigation into them passes an order revoking the licence. 52. Mr. Kagzi has highlighted that the scheme of statute like this put emphasis on functional separation as against the structural separation within the same agency body. In our opinion when the Statute confers the authority with such dual function

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

Bench: RAMESH RANGANATHAN,M.SATYANARAYANA MURTHY

business it frames charges, and on the basis of its investigation into them passes an order revoking the licence. 52. Mr. Kagzi has highlighted that the scheme of statute like this put emphasis on functional separation as against the structural separation within the same agency body. In our opinion when the Statute confers the authority with such dual function

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

business it frames charges, and on the basis of its investigation into them passes an order revoking the licence. 52. Mr. Kagzi has highlighted that the scheme of statute like this put emphasis on functional separation as against the structural separation within the same agency body. In our opinion when the Statute confers the authority with such dual function