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

Bench: J. UMA DEVI,V RAMASUBRAMANIAN

68 ITR 200 (207) 5 273 ITR 50 - 15 - ITA No. 383 of 2016 from the precincts of Section 260A

SRS AND Sri Sai Ganesh Productions vs. Commissioner of Income Tax(Central)

68, 69 and 69A and hence the addition made in the name of the assessee under ITA Nos. 303/2013 & con. 20 the above provision was justified. The peak credit as determined in the subject year represented the funds available with the assessee; was the finding of the Tribunal. The Tribunal also held that the deduction could have been made

Principal Commissioner of Income Tax (Central) vs. Shri B Srinivasa Rao

Accordingly, the appeal fails and is dismissed

Bench: : The Hon’Ble The Chief Justice T.S. Sivagnanam & The Hon’Ble Justice Chaitali Chatterjee (Das) Dated : 1St July, 2025 Appearance: Mr. Vipul Kundalia, Sr. Adv. Mr. Prithu Dudhoria, Adv. ..For Appellant Mr. Saurabh Bagaria, Adv. Mr. Rites Goel, Adv. Ms. Samrita Das, Adv. ..For Respondent

260A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (the Act) is directed against the order dated 22nd August, 2024 passed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, “SMC” Bench, Kolkata (the Tribunal) in ITA No.902/Kol/2024 for the assessment year 2014-15. The revenue has raised the following substantial questions of law for consideration : a) WHETHER in facts and in the circumstances

The Pr. Commissioner of Income vs. Shri. Vishnu Mohan Reddy Chintapally

Appeal is disposed of

Bench: J SREENIVAS RAO,ALOK ARADHE

68,09,650/-. 9. The return was processed under Section 143(1) of the Act. But was, thereafter, picked up for scrutiny under CASS. A notice under Section 143(2) of the Act was issued on 03.09.2015 and duly served upon the Firm on 04.09.2015. Further, notices under Sections

SHRI GYAN KUMAR AGARWAL (INDL) vs. THE ASST. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX,

Bench: J SREENIVAS RAO,ALOK ARADHE

260A of the lncome Tax Act, 1961 against the Order dated 28-O2-20OO passd in l.T.(SS)A.No. 139tHydt2OO5 for the Block Period 1997-98 to 2002-03 & upto 21-01-2003 on the file of the lncome Tax Appellate Tribunal, Hyderabad Bench 'B', Hyderabad, preferred against the Order dated 22-08- 2005 passed in Appeal

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

In the result, the appeal is disposed of

260A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as the Act for short) has been preferred by the assessee. The subject matter of the appeal pertains to the Assessment year 1999-00. The appeal was admitted by a bench of this Court vide order dated 17.03.2014 on the following substantial questions of law: (i) Whether there is proper

THE COMMISSIONER OCF INCOME TAX-I vs. M/S.BHARAT BIOTECH INTERNATIONAL LIMITED

Accordingly, the appeal fails and is dismissed

Bench: :

260A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (the Act) is directed against the order dated 30.10.2024 passed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, “B” Bench, Kolkata (Tribunal) in ITA/1844/Kol/2024, for the assessment year 2016-17. The revenue has raised the following substantial questions of law for consideration : “a) Whether in facts and in the circumstances of the case

THE COMMISSIONER OF I.T.-I, HYDERABAD. vs. M/S. AKASH CABLE TV NETWORK PVT.LTD., HYDERABAD.

Bench: P.SAM KOSHY,NARSING RAO NANDIKONDA

260A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 („Act‟, for short) impugning the common order dated 26.8.2011. The appeals relate to assessment years 2002-03, 2003-04 and 2004-05. In the years in question, the appellant, a private limited company, had received share application money allegedly from Fair “N” Square Exports P. Ltd., Satwant Singh Sodhi Const. P. Ltd., Ethnic

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

Bench: RAMESH RANGANATHAN,KONGARA VIJAYA LAKSHMI

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 PE in India and were, therefore, liable to file income

PENDURTHI CHANDRASEKHAR vs. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX,

Bench: J. UMA DEVI,V RAMASUBRAMANIAN

260A of the Income Tax Act, challenging a common order passed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal. 2. Heard Mr. K.V.Kumar, learned counsel for the appellant and Smt.M.Kiranmayee, learned senior standing counsel for the Department. 3. Though the appellant had originally come up with a few substantial questions of law, the learned counsel for the appellant subsequently filed a memo

The Commissioner of Income TAx-IV vs. Sajjan Kumar Mann

Bench: ANIS,SANJAY KUMAR

260A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 („Act‟) against the impugned order dated 23rd February 2016 passed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal („ITAT‟) in ITA No. 4809/Del/2007 for the Assessment Year („AY‟) 2003-04. 2. While admitting this appeal on 5th October 2016, the following question of law was framed for consideration: “Did the ITAT fell into error

THE COMMISSIONER OF IT IV vs. M/S. OCEAN SPARKLES LIMITED

Bench: J SREENIVAS RAO,ALOK ARADHE

260A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereafter ‘the Act’) calling into question an order dated 13th July, 2012 passed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (hereafter ‘the Tribunal’) in ITA No. 2485/Del/2010. The said appeal was filed by the Assessee challenging an order dated 31st March, 2010 passed by the Commissioner Income Tax (Appeals) [hereafter ‘CIT(A)’)] in Appeal

The Prl. Commissioner of Income vs. The Tarun Kumar Goyal

The appeal is dismissed

Bench: : The Hon’Ble Justice T.S. Sivagnanam & The Hon’Ble Justice Hiranmay Bhattacharyya Date : 3Rd January, 2023. Appearance : Mr. Tilak Mita, Adv. ..For Appellant Ms. Swapna Das, Adv. Mr. Siddharth Das, Adv. …For Respondent Re: Re: Ga/1/2022 The Court:- Heard Mr. Tilak Mitra, Learned Advocate For The Appellant & Ms. Swapna Das, Learned Advocate For The Respondent. There Is A Delay Of 370 Days In Filing The Appeal. We Have Perused The Affidavit Filed In Support Of The Condone Delay Petition & We Find Sufficient Cause Has Been Shown For Not Preferring The Appeal Within The Period Of Limitation. Hence, The Application Is Allowed & The Delay In Filing The Appeal Is Condoned.

section 260A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 [the Act] is directed against the order dated 15.3.2021 passed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal “C” Bench, Kolkata [Tribunal] in ITA No.686/Kol/2019 for the assessment year 2015-16. The revenue has raised the following substantial question of law for consideration : 2 1. WHETHER in the fact and the circumstances

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

260A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereafter ‗the Act‘) against orders passed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (hereafter ‗ITAT‘). ITA Nos. 669/2014, 671/2014 and 672/2014 are appeals preferred by the Assessee against a common ITA 666/2014 & Ors. Page 4 of 57 order dated 13th June, 2014 passed by the ITAT in ITA Nos. 1119, 1120 and 1121/Del/2010, which

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

The appeal is disposed of

260A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as the Act for short) has been preferred by the revenue. The subject matter of the appeal pertains to the Assessment year 2009-10. The appeal was admitted by a bench of this Court vide order dated 01.03.2013 on the following substantial questions of law: (i) Whether the Tribunal

Commissioner of Income Tax vs. Agricultural Market Committee

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

260A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (in short 'the Act') against the order passed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Delhi Bench in ITA No.1831/Del/2010 dated 31.08.2010 (Annexure A/3) wherein the Tribunal has allowed the appeal of the Revenue and set aside the order of the Commissioner, Income Tax Shivani Gupta 2024.01.19 12:57 I attest to the accuracy

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

Section 2(15) of the Act?. 44. We are dealing with a taxing statute. The intention of the legislature in a taxation statute is to be gathered from the language of the provisions particularly where the language is plain and unambiguous. In a Taxing Act, it is not possible to assume any intention or the governing purpose