The Commissioner of Income Tax - IV vs. M/s. Mekins Agro Product (P) Ltd.

dividends, voluntary payment received by trust, etc. It may be noted that profits and gains are generally used in terms of business or profession as provided u/s. 28. The word " income ", therefore, is a much wider term than the expression profits and gains of business or profession ". Net receipt after deducting all the necessary expenditure of the trust (sic). There

V.C. NANNAPANENI vs. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX,

In the result, the appeals are allowed

Bench: C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY,T.AMARNATH GOUD

gain”. 3. The appellant as well as the company filed separate appeals before the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), who dismissed the same confirming the orders of the AO. Aggrieved by those orders, the assessee has filed two appeals ITA Nos.642 and 782/Hyd/2002 for the assessment year 1998- 99 and 1999-2000 respectively, and the company filed ITA No.361/Hyd/2003

Kuchipudi Krishna Kishore vs. The DCIT

Accordingly the appeals deserves to be allowed by setting aside the impugned

Bench: P.SAM KOSHY,N.TUKARAMJI

deeming the salary as dividend was without tenable basis. As such the close down that the case of the assessee would be governed by the provisions of Section 14A of the Act is not sustainable. 16. The other relevant statutory provision, in this context is Section 36 of the Act, which also deals with the aspect of deductions. Sub-section

Commissioner of Income Tax vs. Sri P.Sarveswara Rao

Appeals are partly allowed, in view of the

Bench: RAMESH RANGANATHAN,M.SATYANARAYANA MURTHY

deemed to be income. This amendment is prospective which means that the law is to be interpreted in the light of the judgments applicable, notably Ponni Sugars (supra) in the present case. 16. It is stated that in Sahney Steel (supra) and Ponni Sugars (supra) the issue decided was, what was the true purpose of the incentive or the subsidy

COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX vs. M/S K.VENKATESWARA RAO

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

dividend Rs. 6083/-, other receipts of Rs. 2771/- and interest from IDBI RS. 28700/-?” Tax Appeal No. 371 of 2002 “(1) Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal is right in law in its interpretation of section 80HHA and section 80-I of the Income Tax Act, 1961 in respect of item of interest

M/s. Canara Securities Ltd vs. Dy. Commissioner of Income Tax

Bench: M.S.RAMACHANDRA RAO,T.AMARNATH GOUD

dividends have been consistently declared by those companies. Further, there are no ground for opposing the re-appointment of the HVL as one of the directors of the 4 listed manufacturing companies and not the case has been left out in those companies that the estate will be prejudiced if HVL has re- appointed the Directors and votes should