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

Appeals of the Revenue are dismissed

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

depreciation, reserves, etc., a part of it should in all fairness go to the employees.” 30. In the said case the Supreme Court was considering whether payment for ITA 210/2003 & connected matters Page 17 of 36 the extra services rendered by an employee could be allowed as business expenditure. It was held that for the purposes of allowing commercial

AP. STATE SEEDS DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION, HYD. vs. THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-I, HYD.

Bench: C.V. BHASKAR REDDY,UJJAL BHUYAN

1A), as increased by -- tI ,/ I t' (t \ (b) the amounts carried to any reserves (other thal the reseryes specilied in Section 8OHHD or sub-section (1) of Section 33AC), by whatever name called; or (c) the amount or amounts set aside to provisions made for meeting liabilities, other than ascertained liabilities; or (d) the amount by way of provision

Andhra PRadesh Pradesh Fibres Limited vs. Assistant commissioner of Income Tax

In the result, the order passed by the

Bench: V.V.S.RAO,SANJAY KUMAR

1A) of the Act and was rectified under Section 154 of the Act on 27.10.1998. The case was selected for scrutiny. Thereupon notices were issued under Section 143(2) and 143(1) to the assessee. The assessing officer by an order dated 26.03.1999 passed an order of assessment and inter alia quantified the total taxable income at Rs.8

INCOME TAX BANGALORE vs. SHALINI BHUPAL

Appeal is dismissed

1A) Notwithstanding anything contained in sub-section (1), in relation to any profits and gains derived by an assessee from— (i) an industrial undertaking which begins to manufacture or produce articles or things or to operate its cold storage plant or plants; or (ii) a ship which is first brought into use; or (iii) the business of a hotel which