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

The appeals are allowed

260-A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 ( for short ‘the Act’) had been admitted on 14.03.2012 to consider the following questions of law:- ITA No. 03 of 2012:- i) Whether in law, the learned Income Tax Appellate Tribunal was justified in holding the declaration made by the appellant under VDIS as not legally sustainable, though the certificate issued

Commissioner of Income Tax vs. Dr.Kodela Siva Prasada Rao

Bench: GODA RAGHURAM,M.S.RAMACHANDRA RAO

260-A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (for short ‘the Act’) by the Revenue challenging the order dated 29-06-2010 in I.T.A.No.677/Vizag/2008 of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Visakhapatnam relating to the assessment year 2003-04. 2. The respondent/assessee, an ex-MLA and an Ex-Minister filed his return of income

PENDURTHI CHANDRASEKHAR vs. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX,

The appeal is allowed and all the four substantial

260 A of the Income Tax Act, 1961, challenging an order of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal. The assessment year to which the dispute on hand relates is 2007-08. 2. Though the appellant initially raised about six questions of law, the assessee came up with a memo seeking to reframe the substantial questions of law as follows: 1) Whether

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

Appeals stand dismissed

Bench: P.SAM KOSHY,NARSING RAO NANDIKONDA

260-A OF INCOME TAX ACT 1961, ARISING OUT OF ORDER DATED 29.04.2022 PASSED IN IT(IT)A No.367/BANG/2020 FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2016-17 PRAYING TO DECIDE THE FOREGOING QUESTION OF LAW AND/OR SUCH OTHER QUESTIONS OF LAW AS MAY BE FORMULATED BY THE HON'BLE COURT AS DEEMED FIT AND SET ASIDE THE APPELLATE ORDER DATED 29.04.2022 PASSED

THE COMMI.OF INCOME TAX,HYD. vs. VAIBHAV

Bench: C.V. BHASKAR REDDY,UJJAL BHUYAN

260 (A) of the lncome Tax Act' lg6l,againsttheorderofthelncomeTaxAppellateTribunal,HyderabadBench,A' HyderabadinlTANo.246lHl2OOlforassessmentyearlggT-9Bdated2Bl0112002 preferredagainsttheorderoftheCommissioneroflncomeTax(Appeals)-V (Central)Hyderabad,lTANo.2OS3/SR-3/CIT(A)(Cent)/2OOO-2001dated2710212001 \ preferred agaifist the Order of the Joint Commissioner of lncome Tax (Assts) Spl. Range-3, Hyderabad dated 30/03/2000 PAN/ GIR No.V-301/SR.3, Between: The Commissioner of lncome Tax-lV Hyderabad. ...APPELLANT AND M/s Vaibhav, 5-1-847, Kothi, Hyderabad. ...RESPONDENT

Commissioner of Income Tax, vs. Agricultural Market Committee

Bench: V.V.S.RAO,SANJAY KUMAR

260-A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as “the Act') has been filed by the assessee against the order dated 17th June, 2011 passed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Agra Bench, Agra (hereinafter referred to as the “Tribunal”) in ITA No.467/Agra/2009, Assessment Year (hereinafter referred to as “A.Y.”) 1999-2000. 2. While admitting the appeal

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

Sections 36 (1) (iii) of the Act are met, deduction of interest cannot be denied merely because the Assessee was a cash rich company having enough resources of its own. 68. It is pointed out that in the earlier years Gopal Das Bhawan was still under construction and the interest was capitalised only up to the stage of completion

Paro Food Products, vs. Commissioner of Income Tax -VI

In the result, the appeal is disposed of

260-A OF I.T. ACT, 1961 ARISING OUT OF ORDER DATED 28.03.2013 PASSED IN ITA NO.161/BANG/2012, FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 1999-2000, PRAYING THAT THIS HON’BLE COURT MAY BE PLEASED TO: (I) FORMULATE THE SUBSTANTIAL QUESTIONS OF LAW STATED THEREIN. 2 (I) ALLOW THE APPEAL AND SET ASIDE THE FINDINGS TO THE EXTENT AGAINST THE APPELLANT IN THE ORDER

Commissioner of Income Tax-V, vs. Sri Vinod Krishna Conjeevaram,

The appeal is dismissed

260-A of I.T. Act, 1961 arising out of Order dated 31.7.2013 passed in ITA No.764/Bang/2012 for the Assessment Year 2008- 09 to decide the foregoing question of law and such 2 other questions of law as may be formulated by this Court and to set aside the order dated 31.7.2013 passed by the ITAT, `A’ Bench, Bangalore

Commissioner of Income Tax-II vs. Energy Solutions International India Pvt Ltd.,

Bench: J. UMA DEVI,V RAMASUBRAMANIAN

260-A OF THE INCOME TAX ACT, 1961 ARISING OUT OF ORDER DATED 27.11.2015 PASSED IN ITA NO.449/BANG/2014, FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2009-2010 PRAYING TO DECIDE THE FOREGOING QUESTION OF LAW AND/OR SUCH OTHER QUESTIONS OF LAW AS MAY BE FORMULATED BY THE HON’BLE COURT AS DEEMED FIT AND ETC. ® - 2 - ITA No. 383 of 2016 THIS

The Commissioner of Income Tax IV vs. Margadarshi Chit Fund Pvt. Ltd.,

The appeal is dismissed

260-A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (for short 'Act 1961') seeking setting aside of order dated 28.03.2013 (A-3) passed by Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Chandigarh Bench 'E' passed in ITA-158/Del/2012 dated 22.02.2013 for the assessment year 2008-2009. The case in brief is that the appellant is engaged in business of manufacturing and trading

M/s. Canara Securities Ltd vs. Dy. Commissioner of Income Tax

Bench: M.S.RAMACHANDRA RAO,T.AMARNATH GOUD

Section 178 of the Companies Act, 2013. Therefore, the Chairman of the company, HVL cannot arrogate unto himself the power to cause such appointment when such power ultimately rests with the Board of Directors. The observation of the two Joint APLs that the evident performance of BCrL, the flagship company of MP Birla Group is deteriorating ever since

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

Appeals of the Revenue are dismissed

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

Sections 36 (1) (iii) of the Act are met, deduction of interest cannot be denied merely because the Assessee was a cash rich company having enough resources of its own. 68. It is pointed out that in the earlier years Gopal Das Bhawan was still under construction and the interest was capitalised only up to the stage of completion

THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOMEE TAX-III vs. M/S.V.B.C.FERRO ALLOYS LTD

THE APPEAL IS DISMISSED

Bench: SUJOY PAUL,NAMAVARAPU RAJESHWAR RAO

260 A of the rncome Tax Act 1961 against the order dated 1 5-09-2005 on the fire of the rncome Tax Appeilate Tribunal, Hyderabad Benches - B, Hyderabad in r.TA.No.r 132rHydl2o04 for Assessment Year 2001-2002 preferred against the order dated 06-10-2004 on the file of Commissioner of lncome Tax (Appeals)_lV, Hyderabad in Appeal

SRI PAVAN KUMAR AGARWAL vs. DY. CIT, NIZAMABAD.

Bench: N.TUKARAMJI,UJJAL BHUYAN

Section 260 ( A) of the lncome Tax Act, 1961 aggrieved by the order dated 27-06-2005 in l.T A. No. 686/ Hyd/2000 (A.Y.1996-S7) on the file of the lncome Tax Appellate Tribunal, Hyderabad Bench "A" Hyderabad preferred against the order of the commissioner of lncome tax (Appeals-ll) Hyderabad, dated 09-06- 2000 in Appeal No.13/AC.NZB/ClT(A) ll/1999

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

Bench: C.V. BHASKAR REDDY,UJJAL BHUYAN

260- A of the IT Act wherein the following substantial question of law was framed by this Court on 13-12-2013 : i) Whether in the facts and circumstances of the case, the order of the Assessing Officer can be said to have been passed on the dictates/ directions of the superior authorities; ii)Even if it is taken that

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

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

260- A of the IT Act wherein the following substantial question of law was framed by this Court on 13-12-2013 : i) Whether in the facts and circumstances of the case, the order of the Assessing Officer can be said to have been passed on the dictates/ directions of the superior authorities; ii)Even if it is taken that

Commissioner of Income Tax-II, vs. M/s. Gulf Oil Corporation Ltd.,

The appeal is disposed off

Bench: The Hon'Ble Mr. Justice Ravi Malimath & The Hon’Ble Mr.Justice K.Natarajan Income Tax Appeal Nos.170 To 175 Of 2010 Between:

SECTION 260-A OF THE INCOME-TAX ACT 1961, ARISING OUT OF ORDER DATED 29.01.2010 PASSED IN ITA NO.1001 2 TO 1006/BNG/2009, FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEARS 1999-00 AND 2001-2002 TO 2005-06, PRAYING TO FORMULATE THE SUBSTANTIAL QUESTIONS OF LAW STATED THEREIN; ALLOW THE APPEAL AND SET ASIDE THE ORDER PASSED BY THE ITAT BENGALURU