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

Appeals of the Revenue are dismissed

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

d) selling and distribution costs.” 28. There is, therefore, merit in the contention of the Assessee that the compensation paid to the flat buyers upon surrender of the respective allotted commercial spaces cannot be added to the value of „stock and trade.‟ In the considered view of the Court, the view expressed by the CIT (A) merits acceptance. The conclusion

M/S.P.SATYANARAYANA AND SONS vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD 1[9], HYDERABAD

Appeals are allowed

Bench: P.SAM KOSHY,NARSING RAO NANDIKONDA

TDS at 20% under Section 195(1) of the Act and also paid the same to Government account. However, according to the assessee, since it is a cost sharing agreement and payments were made by the assesee for reimbursement of cost/expenses, no 16 income is embedded therein. Therefore, the assessee is not liable to deduct tax under Section

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. National Mineral Development Corporation Ltd.,

The appeal is dismissed

D, Chandigarh .....Respondent CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE G.S. SANDHAWALIA HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE LAPITA BANERJI Present: Ms. Pridhi Jaswinder Sandhu, Jr. Standing Counsel for the appellant. Mr. Deepak Aggarwal, Advocate for the respondent. **** G.S.SANDHAWALIA, J.(Oral) [1]. The present appeal under Section 260-A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (for short 'the Act') is directed against the order

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

Bench: The Hon'Ble Mr. Justice Ravi Malimath

D G M E N T On 6-11-2001, a search was conducted in the premises of the assessee, who was involved in granite business and a search was also conducted in the premises of others. A block assessment was concluded and undisclosed income was determined at Rs.1,49,43,800/-. Aggrieved by the same, the assessee preferred