Principal Commissioner of Income Tax-1 vs. M/s Sri Sri Gruha Nirman India Pvt. Ltd.

Appeals are dismissed

Bench: P.SAM KOSHY,NARSING RAO NANDIKONDA

143(2) of the Act were issued. 3.2 In the course of assessment proceedings, the Assessing Officer noticed that the respondent/assessee had claimed deductions under Section Digitally Signed By:VAISHALI CHAUHAN Signing Date:10.01.2024 15:43:36 Signature Not Verified ITA 1021/2019 & 157/2023 Page 5 of 9 pages 80IC of the Act to the tune of Rs.7

PENDURTHI CHANDRASEKHAR vs. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX,

The appeal is allowed and all the four substantial

TDS on entire amount in utter disregard to the provisions of Sec.145 of the Act and method of accounting followed by the assessee? 3. Heard Mr. K. Vasantha Kumar, learned counsel for the appellant and Smt. M. Kiranmayee, learned senior standing counsel for the Department. 4. A search and seizure operation under Section 132 of the Income

Commissioner of Income Tax, vs. M/s Polisetty Somasundaram,

TDS was deducted and deposited in the Government account. Since no information was furnished by the assessee nor any evidence is available on record to substantiate the claim of the assessee as genuine, the expenses of Rs.2,00,00,000/- not relating to the business were disallowed and added to the income of the assessee.” Against the said order

THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-III vs. M/S. SOMA ENTERPRISES LTD

The appeal is disposed off accordingly

Bench: The Hon'Ble Mr. Justice Ravi Malimath

143(2) was issued and served on the assessee on 23.08.2007. In response to the same, the Internal Auditor has appeared and represented the case and produced various documents and books of account for verification. 4. On the question of depreciation, the Trust had claimed deduction towards depreciation allowance 4 amounting to Rs.8,41,36,636/- which includes depreciation

THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-I, vs. AYYAPPA INFRA PROJECTS PVT LTD.,

Bench: RAMESH RANGANATHAN,M.SATYANARAYANA MURTHY

2) of the Income Tax Act. The petitioner has placed reliance on certain circulars in support of the contention that the petitioner is also eligible for 100% deduction of Income Tax. WP(C) No. 673 of 2014 3 3. The petitioner had availed the services of an US Company called M/s. Points and Lines LLC, USA and also outsourced

M/S. SREE TRADING CORPORATION vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD 4(1), HYDERABAD

Bench: N.TUKARAMJI,UJJAL BHUYAN

2. This appeal has been preferred by the assessee under Section 260A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (briefly referred to hereinafter as ‘the Act’) against the order dated 05.10.2005 passed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Hyderabad Bench ‘A’, Hyderabad (briefly referred to hereinafter as ‘the Tribunal’) in ITA No.1098/Hyd/2004 for the assessment year 2001-2002. 3. Though

The Commissioner of Income Tax - IV vs. National Mineral Development Corporation Ltd.,

The appeal is dismissed

2 issue. Reliance was placed upon the decision of the majority view of the Special Bench of Vishakhapatnam Tribunal in ACIT Vs. Merilyn Shipping and Transports, (2012) 16 ITR 1, which thereafter had been set aside by the Gurjarat High Court in CIT Vs. Sikanderkhan N. Tunvar and others, (2013) 357 ITR 312 and Calcutta High Court