Commissioner of Income Tax, vs. M/s. Kokivenkateswara Reddy AND others,

Appeals of the Revenue are dismissed

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

207. The expression “for the purposes of business” is wider than the expression “for the purpose of earning income.” The former would include within its scope expenditure incurred on grounds of commercial expediency.” 35. In the present case, the Assessee has a plausible explanation for making such payment of compensation to protect its „business interests.‟ While it is true that

Commissioner of Income Tax vs. M/s. Southern Packaging

Bench: The Hon'Ble Mr. Justice Ravi Malimath

TDS etc.,? ii. In the facts and circumstances of the case, whether the tribunal is correct directing the assessing authority to allow deduction under section 80HHC when the assessee has failed to file the same before assessing authority when the assessing authority had specifically asked the assessee to file the same during the course of assessment proceedings and has filed

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-IV vs. M/s.OCV Reinforcement Manufacturing Limited

Bench: RAMESH RANGANATHAN,M.SATYANARAYANA MURTHY

207, ll Floor, Saptagiri Towers Begumpet, Hyderabad-16 AND 1 ...Revision Petitioners Nethavath Vijaya, W/o. Late Nethavath Keethya @ Ravi, Aged about 33 years, Occ: Household Nethavath Praveen, S/o. Late Nethavath Keethya @ Ravi, Aged about 14 years, Occ: Student Nethavath Naveen, S/o. Late Nethavath Keethya @ Ravi, Aged about 11 years, Occ: Student Petitioners No.2 and 3 being minors