MENAKURU SUKUMAR REDDY,HYDERABAD vs. DCIT(A), CHENNAI

In the result the appeal of the revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri S.S. Viswanethra Ravi & Shri S. R. Raghunatha

addition made, the assessee filed an appeal before ld.CIT(A) and raised grounds on disallowance of development expenditures. During the first appellate proceedings the assessee made submission with respect to disallowances made towards development expenditure incurred by the assessee. However, the ld.CIT(A), without considering the issue under consideration i.e., disallowance of expenditure, enhanced the income

MENAKURU SUKUMAR REDDY,HYDERABAD vs. DCIT(A), CHENNAI

In the result the appeal of the revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri S.S. Viswanethra Ravi & Shri S. R. Raghunatha

addition made, the assessee filed an appeal before ld.CIT(A) and raised grounds on disallowance of development expenditures. During the first appellate proceedings the assessee made submission with respect to disallowances made towards development expenditure incurred by the assessee. However, the ld.CIT(A), without considering the issue under consideration i.e., disallowance of expenditure, enhanced the income

M/S ENRIA ENTERPRISES PVT. LTD,CHENNAI vs. DCIT. CENTRAL CIRCLE - 3(4), CHENNAI

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee in ITA

Bench: Shri Manjunatha. G & Shri Manomohan Das

additional income voluntarily offered by the assessee towards inflated expenditure under the head marketing expenses being purchase of ‘gift articles’. While completing the assessment, the AO has observed that after considering relevant submissions of the assessee, the income offered by the assessee, including estimated disallowance

M/S ENRICE ENTERPRISES PVT. LTD,CHENNAI vs. DCIT,CENTRAL CIRCLE-3(4), CHENNAI

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee in ITA

Bench: Shri Manjunatha. G & Shri Manomohan Das

additional income voluntarily offered by the assessee towards inflated expenditure under the head marketing expenses being purchase of ‘gift articles’. While completing the assessment, the AO has observed that after considering relevant submissions of the assessee, the income offered by the assessee, including estimated disallowance

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE 2(2), CHENNAI, CHENNAI vs. ETHIRAJULU VAJRAVEL KUMARAN, TIRUVANNAMALAI,

income in so far as estimated disallowance of\nproportionate marketing expenses. The additional income has\nbeen quantified by the Revenue

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE 2(2), CHENNAI, CHENNAI vs. ETHIRAJULU VAJRAVEL KUMARAN, TIRUVANNAMALAI

In the result, all the six appeals of the Revenue are\ndismissed

income in so far as estimated disallowance of\nproportionate marketing expenses. The additional income has\nbeen quantified by the Revenue

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE 2(2), CHENNAI, CHENNAI vs. ETHIRAJULU VAJRAVEL KUMARAN, CHENNAI

In the result, all the six appeals of the Revenue are\ndismissed

income in so far as estimated disallowance of\nproportionate marketing expenses. The additional income has\nbeen quantified by the Revenue

M/S ENRICE ENTERPRISES PVT LTD,CHENNAI vs. DCIT,CENTRAL CIRCLE-3(4), CHENNAI

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Manjunatha. G & Shri Manomohan Das

additional income offered towards estimated disallowance of marketing expenses and said additional income was gone unnoticed had search been not conducted

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE 2(2), CHENNAI, CHENNAI vs. ETHIRAJULU VAJRAVEL KUMARAN, THIRUVANNAMALAI

In the result, all the six appeals of the Revenue are\ndismissed

income in so far as estimated disallowance of\nproportionate marketing expenses. The additional income has\nbeen quantified by the Revenue

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE 2(2), CHENNAI, CHENNAI vs. ETHIRAJULU VAJRAVEL KUMARAN, TIRUVANNAMALAI

income in so far as estimated disallowance of\nproportionate marketing expenses. The additional income has\nbeen quantified by the Revenue

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE 2(2), CHENNAI, CHENNAI vs. ETHIRAJULU VAJRAVEL KUMARAN, THIRUVANNAMALAI

income in so far as estimated disallowance of\nproportionate marketing expenses. The additional income has\nbeen quantified by the Revenue

ACIT, CHENNAI vs. MENAKURU SUKUMAR REDDY , CHENNAI

addition made,\nthe assessee filed an appeal before Id.CIT(A) and raised grounds on disallowance\nof development expenditures.\nDuring the first appellate proceedings the assessee made submission with\nrespect to disallowances made towards development expenditure incurred by the\nassessee. However, the Id.CIT(A), without considering the issue under\nconsideration i.e., disallowance of expenditure, enhanced the income

MENAKURU SUKUMAR REDDY,HYDERABAD vs. DCIT(A), CHENNAI

addition made,\nthe assessee filed an appeal before Id.CIT(A) and raised grounds on disallowance\nof development expenditures.\nDuring the first appellate proceedings the assessee made submission with\nrespect to disallowances made towards development expenditure incurred by the\nassessee. However, the Id.CIT(A), without considering the issue under\nconsideration i.e., disallowance of expenditure, enhanced the income

INTEGRATED SERVICE POINT LTD.,CHENNAI vs. ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2(4), CHENNAI

Accordingly, the assessee's appeals in ITA Nos.1881, 1882,\nand 1883/Chny/2025 for A.Ys.2016-17, 2019-20, and 2022-23 are\nallowed

income before\nthe AO.\n66. However, the AO disregarded these submissions and proceeded\nto disallow the entire expenditure by categorizing the payments as\nnon-genuine and inflated, invoking Section 37(1) of the Act, without\nconsidering the additional

THANUSHKODI NARAYANAN,CHENNAI vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-3(2), CHENNAI

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessees in ITA Nos

disallowances:\n\nSubject to the above, the total income of the assessee is assessed as under:\nA. Income from salaries as returned Rs. 90,85,800/-\nAdd: Perquisite u/s 17(2) (as in para 9.5) Rs. 3,96,016/- Rs. 94,81,816/-\nB. Income from House property Rs. 5,87,998/-\nas returned\nAdd: Addition

ACIT, NUNGAMBAKKAM vs. INTEGRATED SERVICE POINT LIMITED, ANNA NAGAR

Accordingly, the assessee's appeals in ITA Nos.1881, 1882,\nand 1883/Chny/2025 for A.Ys.2016-17, 2019-20, and 2022-23 are\nallowed

income before\nthe AO.\n66. However, the AO disregarded these submissions and proceeded\nto disallow the entire expenditure by categorizing the payments as\nnon-genuine and inflated, invoking section 37(1) of the Act, without\nconsidering the additional

INTEGRATED SERVICE POINT LTD.,CHENNAI vs. ACIT, CC-2(4), CHENNAI

Accordingly, the assessee's appeals in ITA Nos.1881, 1882,\nand 1883/Chny/2025 for A.Ys.2016-17, 2019-20, and 2022-23 are\nallowed

income before\nthe AO.\n66. However, the AO disregarded these submissions and proceeded\nto disallow the entire expenditure by categorizing the payments as\nnon-genuine and inflated, invoking section 37(1) of the Act, without\nconsidering the additional

ACIT, NUNAGAMBAKKAM vs. INTEGRATED SERVICE POINT LIMITED, ANNA NAGAR

income before\nthe AO.\n66. However, the AO disregarded these submissions and proceeded\nto disallow the entire expenditure by categorizing the payments as\nnon-genuine and inflated, invoking section 37(1) of the Act, without\nconsidering the additional