The Commissioner of Income Tax-II, vs. M/S Gulf Oil Corporation Pvt. Ltd.,

Bench: RAMESH RANGANATHAN,M.SATYANARAYANA MURTHY

68,478/­.  However,   it   was   seen   that   at   page   88   the  assessee  has  enclosed  computation  of total  income of GAFL according to which income has  been computed at NIL by chiming unabsorbed  business   loss   brought   forward   from   Asst.  Year 1991­92 at Rs. 16,38,462/­ and in the  note   total   business   loss   to   be   carried  forward to asst. year 1993­94

The Commissioner of Income Tax - VI vs. M/s. Manikanta Iron AND Hardware

Bench: RAMESH RANGANATHAN,M.SATYANARAYANA MURTHY

68,478/­.  However,   it   was   seen   that   at   page   88   the  assessee  has  enclosed  computation  of total  income of GAFL according to which income has  been computed at NIL by chiming unabsorbed  business   loss   brought   forward   from   Asst.  Year 1991­92 at Rs. 16,38,462/­ and in the  note   total   business   loss   to   be   carried  forward to asst. year 1993­94

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

loss as being unexplained. Thereafter, in his appeals against the aforesaid additions, as well as in respect of AY 2007-08, the assessee produced the following additional documents under Section 46 of the IT Rules:- “(i) Attested copy of Certificate of Incorporation of M/s Russian Technology Centre Holding Ltd. (ii) Attested copy of Certificate of Incumbency of M/s Russian Technology

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

The appeals are dismissed

loss as being unexplained. Thereafter, in his appeals against the aforesaid additions, as well as in respect of AY 2007-08, the assessee produced the following additional documents under Section 46 of the IT Rules:- “(i) Attested copy of Certificate of Incorporation of M/s Russian Technology Centre Holding Ltd. (ii) Attested copy of Certificate of Incumbency of M/s Russian Technology

Principal Commissioner of Income Tax [TDS] vs. M/s.KCIL-MEIL [JV]

Bench: RAMESH RANGANATHAN,M.SATYANARAYANA MURTHY

loss of weight, processing live bird to meat, mortality and expenses for feeding the birds in between these days, etc. The allegation of undervaluation is hence without realistic appraisal of the facts and circumstances of the case. 3. The examination of Statistical department officers would prove that the details of poultry meat are procured by them from market, the price

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

The appeal is disposed of

Loss Account Income as per Income and Expenditure Account 57,39,68,569 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

The Commissioner of Income -Tax - III, vs. Shri Taher Ali

Bench: RAMESH RANGANATHAN,M.SATYANARAYANA MURTHY

loss of money as he has to deduct F.S.I. Of this portion from balance area available for future development. In the cross examination of this architect nothing material is elicited in order to falsify him or diminish evidentiary value of this report. The main objection on behalf of the appellants/original defendants as regards the Architect's report is that

THE APR.COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (CENTRAL) vs. SHRI TUMMALA SRI RAM BABU

Bench: RAMESH RANGANATHAN,KONGARA VIJAYA LAKSHMI

68,589/- with the Registry on 01.09.2018, in purported compliance of orders dated 24.07.2018 read with 21.08.2018. 7. On 10.09.2018, Court appointed M/s PN Chopra & Co. as a Valuer to ascertain the realizable value of the assets mentioned in the two affidavits filed by the petitioner. On 23.10.2018, the Valuer submitted its Report. 8. On 24.12.2018, the petitioner deposited

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

Bench: C.V. BHASKAR REDDY,UJJAL BHUYAN

setting off the brought forward losses. In the course of assessment proceedings, assessing officer took the view that there was conceaiment of income by the assessee and elaborated upon the alleged nodu operurdi of the assessee. Foliowing a factual analpis, excess of Rs.2,73,A7)93.00 over the amolrnt declared by the assessee to its banker while availing financial credit

M/s. Kausalya Shelters Private Limited vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax

Bench: N.TUKARAMJI,UJJAL BHUYAN

68. He further submitted that the petitioner‟s obligation of payment of rent for the remainder lock-in period is a genuine pre-estimate of the loss suffered by respondent as the rented property in question is located at a prime location in Delhi and the area in question also comprised of a significant area i.e., of 1338.72 sq. meters

Commissioner of Income Tax- IT and TP vs. M/s. Louis Berger International Inc.,

Bench: P.SAM KOSHY,LAXMI NARAYANA ALISHETTY

set aside the order of the first appellate authority dated 26 April 2019 and allowed the appeals that were preferred by the respondents. 6. The facts of CUSAA 126/2022 proceed along similar lines. The appellant in that appeal had filed 8 BoE between 8 February 2019 and 15 February 2019 in respect of the import of two lots of polyester

Commissioner of Income Tax-II vs. M/s. Andhra Pradesh Mineral Development Corporation Ltd.

Bench: P.SAM KOSHY,LAXMI NARAYANA ALISHETTY

set aside the order of the first appellate authority dated 26 April 2019 and allowed the appeals that were preferred by the respondents. 6. The facts of CUSAA 126/2022 proceed along similar lines. The appellant in that appeal had filed 8 BoE between 8 February 2019 and 15 February 2019 in respect of the import of two lots of polyester

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

loss in the transaction. The CIT(A) held that the transactions were to be viewed as a whole and not merely in the form of the agreement. On the basis of the aforesaid findings, the CIT(A) upheld the conclusion of the AO that the Assessee was a paper company incorporated only with a motive to evade income tax liability

M/s. Maruthi Movies vs. Income Tax Officer

Bench: This Court & Making The Same A Rule Of Court, Alongwith Decree Against Respondents Awarding Rs.5,35,920/- Paid By The Petitioner To The Arbitrator As Their Share Of Fees As Per Order Dated 21.12.2010. 2. Respondent No.1 Has Filed Its Objections To The Award Under Section 30 & 33 Of The Act In Form Of I.A. No.9067/2011. Respondent No.2 Has Also Filed Its Objections To The Award.

loss of profits for which no specific evidence was produced by either party.” CS(OS) No.486/2011 Page 26 53. Before proceeding further I would also like to note that the petitioner itself before the Arbitrator sought further directions incase specific performance was ordered by the Arbitrator. These, inter alia, included the direction to the respondents to approve

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

Bench: P.SAM KOSHY,NARSING RAO NANDIKONDA

section 68 of the Act and thus the onus to prove the contrary was on the revenue. In support of the above contention, the assessee has placed reliance on the judgment of Hon‟ble Supreme Court in the case of Lovely Exports Pvt. Ltd. (supra) 18. On the issue of resting of onus, the contention of revenue is that

The Commissioner of Income Tax (Central) vs. M/s Hyderabad House Pvt Ltd.,

Section 48 of Income Tax Act, 1961 for each financial year, to be a better method to off-set the effect of inflation on the real value of money. This approach, if followed, would ensure that there is no inconsistency in the awards of compensation in cases of death of children. [R.K.Malik (supra) and Balram Prasad v. Kumar Saha

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

Bench: CHALLA KODANDA RAM,G.CHANDRAIAH

setting aside or modifying any proceeding taken under the Act or order made thereunder. In the present case, search and seizure were effected as per the provisions of the Act, assets and documents seized and statement of Babulal recorded under sub-section (4) of Section 132 of the Act wherein he admitted that the gold was acquired from

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 of the statute