BS LIMITED,HYDERABAD vs. ASST.COMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-2(3), HYDERABAD

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri D. Manmohan & Shri S. Rifaur Rahmanassessment Year: 2013-14

263,43,72,667/- 2 Adarsh Global & Trade Pvt. Ltd. 72,52,13,258/- 3 Resources Metals Pvt. Ltd. 41,68,29,478/- 4 Vedika Steels Pvt. Ltd. - 5 United Minerals Pvt. Ltd. - Total purchases (related 377,64,15,403/- concerns) Other purchases (unrelated 102,92,43,281/- concerns) Total purchases debited

DY.CIT, CIR-1(2), HYDERABAD vs. M/S CUNTRY CLUB (I) LIMITED,, HYDERABAD

In the result, the grounds of the appeal of the assessee on this issue are allowed

Bench: Smt. P. Madhavi Devi & Shri S. Rifaur Rahmanassessment Year: 2009-10 M/S Country Club Vs. Asst. Cit, Circle-1(2), Hospitality & Holidays Ltd., Hyderabad. (Formerly Known As Country Club India Ltd.,) Hyderabad.

purchase of items such as vegetables, fruits, dairy, poultry, milk and other sundry expenses from the small vendors who do not have any bank account and hence could not be paid in cheques / through banking channel. Hence, disallowance u/s. 40A(3) is not called for. 4. That the assessee company is running hotel business and the company is having

M/S. COUNTRY CLUB INDIA LTD.,,HYDERABAD vs. ACIT, CIRCLE-1(2), HYDERABAD

In the result, the grounds of the appeal of the assessee on this issue are allowed

Bench: Smt. P. Madhavi Devi & Shri S. Rifaur Rahmanassessment Year: 2009-10 M/S Country Club Vs. Asst. Cit, Circle-1(2), Hospitality & Holidays Ltd., Hyderabad. (Formerly Known As Country Club India Ltd.,) Hyderabad.

purchase of items such as vegetables, fruits, dairy, poultry, milk and other sundry expenses from the small vendors who do not have any bank account and hence could not be paid in cheques / through banking channel. Hence, disallowance u/s. 40A(3) is not called for. 4. That the assessee company is running hotel business and the company is having

ACIT., CIRCLE-5(1), HYDERABAD vs. PENNA CEMENT INDUSTRIES LIMITED, HYDERABAD

263 of the Act is bad in law and therefore need to be quashed and we order accordingly\". We are in agreement with such observations and findings of the Co-ordinate Bench of the Tribunal and while respectfully following the same, we hold that inasmuch as the assessee satisfied the conditions of section 80G of the Act, the assessee

ACIT., CIRCLE-5(1), HYDERABAD vs. PENNA CEMENT INDUSTRIES LIMITED, HYDERABAD

263 of the Act is bad in law and therefore need to be\nquashed and we order accordingly\".\n16.\nWe are in agreement with such observations and findings of the\nCo-ordinate Bench of the Tribunal and while respectfully following the\nsame, we hold that inasmuch as the assessee satisfied the conditions\nof section 80G of the Act, the assessee

DY. COMMSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(3)., HYDERABAD vs. SAI SUDHIR INFRASTRUCTURES LIMITED., HYDERABAD

In the result, a) ITA Nos

Bench: Smt. P. Madhavi Devi & Shri S. Rifaur Rahmansrl Appeal Number Pan A.Y. Appellant Respondent 1

section 37(1). To conclude, therefore, the assessee had claimed to have incurred expenditure in making payments to certain persons who are introduced as sub-contractors. If the transactions between two independent persons are at arms-length there would have been no occasion to collect in cash, the very payments that have been made to such persons by cheque. Whether

DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(3)., HYDERABAD vs. SAI SUDHIR INFRASTRUCTURES LIMITED, HYDERABAD

In the result, a) ITA Nos

Bench: Smt. P. Madhavi Devi & Shri S. Rifaur Rahmansrl Appeal Number Pan A.Y. Appellant Respondent 1

section 37(1). To conclude, therefore, the assessee had claimed to have incurred expenditure in making payments to certain persons who are introduced as sub-contractors. If the transactions between two independent persons are at arms-length there would have been no occasion to collect in cash, the very payments that have been made to such persons by cheque. Whether

DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(3)., HYDERABAD vs. SAI SUDHIR INFRASTRUCTURES LIMITED, HYDERABAD

In the result, a) ITA Nos

Bench: Smt. P. Madhavi Devi & Shri S. Rifaur Rahmansrl Appeal Number Pan A.Y. Appellant Respondent 1

section 37(1). To conclude, therefore, the assessee had claimed to have incurred expenditure in making payments to certain persons who are introduced as sub-contractors. If the transactions between two independent persons are at arms-length there would have been no occasion to collect in cash, the very payments that have been made to such persons by cheque. Whether

DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(3)., HYDERABAD vs. SAI SUDHIR INFRASTRUCTURES LIMITED, HYDERABAD

In the result, a) ITA Nos

Bench: Smt. P. Madhavi Devi & Shri S. Rifaur Rahmansrl Appeal Number Pan A.Y. Appellant Respondent 1

section 37(1). To conclude, therefore, the assessee had claimed to have incurred expenditure in making payments to certain persons who are introduced as sub-contractors. If the transactions between two independent persons are at arms-length there would have been no occasion to collect in cash, the very payments that have been made to such persons by cheque. Whether

DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX , CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(3), HYDERABAD vs. ASR ENGINEERING AND PROJECTS LIMITED, HYDERABAD

In the result, a) ITA Nos

Bench: Smt. P. Madhavi Devi & Shri S. Rifaur Rahmansrl Appeal Number Pan A.Y. Appellant Respondent 1

section 37(1). To conclude, therefore, the assessee had claimed to have incurred expenditure in making payments to certain persons who are introduced as sub-contractors. If the transactions between two independent persons are at arms-length there would have been no occasion to collect in cash, the very payments that have been made to such persons by cheque. Whether

DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX , CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(3), HYDERABAD vs. ASR ENGINEERING AND PROJECTS LIMITED , HYDERABAD

In the result, a) ITA Nos

Bench: Smt. P. Madhavi Devi & Shri S. Rifaur Rahmansrl Appeal Number Pan A.Y. Appellant Respondent 1

section 37(1). To conclude, therefore, the assessee had claimed to have incurred expenditure in making payments to certain persons who are introduced as sub-contractors. If the transactions between two independent persons are at arms-length there would have been no occasion to collect in cash, the very payments that have been made to such persons by cheque. Whether

ASR ENGINERING & PROJECTS LIMITED (FORMERLY SAI SUDHIR INFRASTRUCTURES LIMITED), ,HYDERABAD vs. DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(3), HYDERABAD

In the result, a) ITA Nos

Bench: Smt. P. Madhavi Devi & Shri S. Rifaur Rahmansrl Appeal Number Pan A.Y. Appellant Respondent 1

section 37(1). To conclude, therefore, the assessee had claimed to have incurred expenditure in making payments to certain persons who are introduced as sub-contractors. If the transactions between two independent persons are at arms-length there would have been no occasion to collect in cash, the very payments that have been made to such persons by cheque. Whether

ASR ENGINERING & PROJECTS LIMITED (FORMERLY SAI SUDHIR INFRASTRUCTURES LIMITED), ,HYDERABAD vs. DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(3), HYDERABAD

In the result, a) ITA Nos

Bench: Smt. P. Madhavi Devi & Shri S. Rifaur Rahmansrl Appeal Number Pan A.Y. Appellant Respondent 1

section 37(1). To conclude, therefore, the assessee had claimed to have incurred expenditure in making payments to certain persons who are introduced as sub-contractors. If the transactions between two independent persons are at arms-length there would have been no occasion to collect in cash, the very payments that have been made to such persons by cheque. Whether

ASR ENGINERING & PROJECTS LIMITED (FORMERLY SAI SUDHIR INFRASTRUCTURES LIMITED), ,HYDERABAD vs. DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(3), HYDERABAD

In the result, a) ITA Nos

Bench: Smt. P. Madhavi Devi & Shri S. Rifaur Rahmansrl Appeal Number Pan A.Y. Appellant Respondent 1

section 37(1). To conclude, therefore, the assessee had claimed to have incurred expenditure in making payments to certain persons who are introduced as sub-contractors. If the transactions between two independent persons are at arms-length there would have been no occasion to collect in cash, the very payments that have been made to such persons by cheque. Whether

ASR ENGINERING & PROJECTS LIMITED (FORMERLY SAI SUDHIR INFRASTRUCTURES LIMITED), ,HYDERABAD vs. DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(3), HYDERABAD

In the result, a) ITA Nos

Bench: Smt. P. Madhavi Devi & Shri S. Rifaur Rahmansrl Appeal Number Pan A.Y. Appellant Respondent 1

section 37(1). To conclude, therefore, the assessee had claimed to have incurred expenditure in making payments to certain persons who are introduced as sub-contractors. If the transactions between two independent persons are at arms-length there would have been no occasion to collect in cash, the very payments that have been made to such persons by cheque. Whether

DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX , CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(3), HYDERABAD vs. ASR ENGINEERING AND PROJECTS LIMITED , HYDERABAD

In the result, a) ITA Nos

Bench: Smt. P. Madhavi Devi & Shri S. Rifaur Rahmansrl Appeal Number Pan A.Y. Appellant Respondent 1

section 37(1). To conclude, therefore, the assessee had claimed to have incurred expenditure in making payments to certain persons who are introduced as sub-contractors. If the transactions between two independent persons are at arms-length there would have been no occasion to collect in cash, the very payments that have been made to such persons by cheque. Whether

DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX , CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(3), HYDERABAD vs. ASR ENGINEERING AND PROJECTS LIMITED, HYDERABAD

In the result, a) ITA Nos

Bench: Smt. P. Madhavi Devi & Shri S. Rifaur Rahmansrl Appeal Number Pan A.Y. Appellant Respondent 1

section 37(1). To conclude, therefore, the assessee had claimed to have incurred expenditure in making payments to certain persons who are introduced as sub-contractors. If the transactions between two independent persons are at arms-length there would have been no occasion to collect in cash, the very payments that have been made to such persons by cheque. Whether

DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX , CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(3), HYDERABAD vs. ASR ENGINEERING AND PROJECTS LIMITED, HYDERABAD

In the result, a) ITA Nos

Bench: Smt. P. Madhavi Devi & Shri S. Rifaur Rahmansrl Appeal Number Pan A.Y. Appellant Respondent 1

section 37(1). To conclude, therefore, the assessee had claimed to have incurred expenditure in making payments to certain persons who are introduced as sub-contractors. If the transactions between two independent persons are at arms-length there would have been no occasion to collect in cash, the very payments that have been made to such persons by cheque. Whether

ASR ENGINERING & PROJECTS LIMITED (FORMERLY SAI SUDHIR INFRASTRUCTURES LIMITED), ,HYDERABAD vs. DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(3), HYDERABAD

In the result, a) ITA Nos

Bench: Smt. P. Madhavi Devi & Shri S. Rifaur Rahmansrl Appeal Number Pan A.Y. Appellant Respondent 1

section 37(1). To conclude, therefore, the assessee had claimed to have incurred expenditure in making payments to certain persons who are introduced as sub-contractors. If the transactions between two independent persons are at arms-length there would have been no occasion to collect in cash, the very payments that have been made to such persons by cheque. Whether