The Director of Income Tax-(Exemptions), vs. Vasavi Academy of Education

Bench: ANIS,SANJAY KUMAR

disallowed and similarly, the rent paid by others have been discarded. Without any basis, it is simply stated that the vehicle was purchased by paying Rs.3,50,000/- from out of the ill gotton money in the hands of the husband of the petitioner. It was contended that the father of the petitioner, who is a retired Central Government employee

Sri Rajesh Rawtani vs. The Income Tax Officer

The appeals are disposed off in the above

Bench: P.SAM KOSHY,SUDDALA CHALAPATHI RAO

10 allowed under section 37(1). The AO and the CIT had disallowed the claim originally made under section 80G. The reasoning of these two lower authorities was that the claim was unsupported by any documentary proof with regard to the permissibility of the deduction and such being the case, relief of larger deduction as business expenditure could

The Prl Commissioner of Income Tax (Exemptions) vs. Institute of Development and Research in Banking Technology

Bench: ABHINAND KUMAR SHAVILI,V RAMASUBRAMANIAN

10(23G) of the Act. In addition, the Assessing Officer also proceeded to bring to tax Rs.5,27,67,000/- and Rs.79,12,000/-, which were provisions created and disallowed in the earlier years for non-deduction of tax at source under Section 40(a) of the Act and which were reversed in A.Y. 2008-09, on the ground that

COMM OF INCOME TAX, HYD vs. M/S. BALAN NATURAL FOOD PRIVATE LTD., HYD

Bench: RAMESH RANGANATHAN,KONGARA VIJAYA LAKSHMI

disallowed the aforesaid amount in terms of Section 14A of the Act. A sum of Rs.3,43,28,658/- being 5% thereof was estimated as expenditure incurred for earning such income. 3. The assessee, thereupon, filed an appeal. The Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) by an order dated 31.05.2011 partly allowed the appeal. Being aggrieved, the revenue as well

The Commissioner of Income Tax IV vs. M/s Matrix Power Pvt Ltd.,

disallowed, as the income of this unit was exempt from tax. In response, the Assessee furnished its detailed submissions, which, however, were rejected by the AO who was of the opinion that as Section 10B was in Chapter-III of the Act, under the heading ―incomes which do not form part of total income‖, legislative intent was clear that such

The Commissioner of Income Tax-II vs. M/s.Pact Securities AND Financial Services Ltd

Bench: The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals), The Assessees Had Called In Question The Orders Of Assessing Officer (For Short ‘The A.O.’), Who, While Completing The Assessment For The Relevant Assessment Years Disallowed The Deduction Of The “Lease Equalization” Charges From The Lease Rental Income. The Disallowed Amounts By The Cit (Appeals) In These Appeals Are Of Rs.48,56,224/-, Rs,44,18,245/- & Rs.13,16,123/-.

disallowance made by the lower authorities on the claim of the appellant with regard to the lease equalization account to the extent of Rs.4,35,89,466/-? 2. Whether in law the Tribunal is justified in not appreciating that the appellant being a NBFC had followed the norms required by its regulatory authority namely RBI and hence the claim made

The Commissioner of Income Tax -II vs. M/S Heritage Foods India Limited,

section 35D of the Act and the balance amount of Rs.70,99,425/- was disallowed by the Assessing Officer. 6. Feeling aggrieved by the order of the Assessing Officer, the assessee filed appeal before the Commissioner of Income Tax(Appeals), who in view of the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in India Cements

The Commissioner of Income Tax [Central] vs. Akula Nageswara Rao

The appeals stand dismissed

Bench: SANJAY KUMAR,GUDISEVA SHYAM PRASAD

10) of the Act recomputed the deduction admissible under Section 80IC of the Act and an addition of ` 7,44,41,112/- was made to the income of the assessee. Hence the income was assessed under Section 143(3) of the Act at ` 8,81,13,290/- vide order dated 30.01.2014, Annexure A.1. Aggrieved by the order, the assessee filed

The Commissioner of Income tax vs. M/s.V.Satyanrayana AND Others

In the result, for the above reasons, we set aside the orders

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

Section 10 of the Act requires the Commissioner to assess the amount of tax due from the dealer and does not impose any liability as to “an order in writing”. In spite of these differences, the two provisions are substantially the same and impose on the assessing authority a duty to assess the tax after hearing such evidence

COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, vs. M/S G.R.K.PRASAD AND OTHERS

In the result, for the above reasons, we set aside the orders

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

Section 10 of the Act requires the Commissioner to assess the amount of tax due from the dealer and does not impose any liability as to “an order in writing”. In spite of these differences, the two provisions are substantially the same and impose on the assessing authority a duty to assess the tax after hearing such evidence

COMMISSIONER OFINCOEMETAX vs. M/S. V.SATYANARAYANA AND OTHERS

In the result, for the above reasons, we set aside the orders

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

Section 10 of the Act requires the Commissioner to assess the amount of tax due from the dealer and does not impose any liability as to “an order in writing”. In spite of these differences, the two provisions are substantially the same and impose on the assessing authority a duty to assess the tax after hearing such evidence

The Commissioner of Income Tax vs. M/s.G.V.Krishna Reddy AND Others

In the result, for the above reasons, we set aside the orders

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

Section 10 of the Act requires the Commissioner to assess the amount of tax due from the dealer and does not impose any liability as to “an order in writing”. In spite of these differences, the two provisions are substantially the same and impose on the assessing authority a duty to assess the tax after hearing such evidence

COMMISSISONER OF I.T. RAJAHMUNDRY vs. M/S.Y RAMAKRISHNA AND OTHERS

In the result, for the above reasons, we set aside the orders

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

Section 10 of the Act requires the Commissioner to assess the amount of tax due from the dealer and does not impose any liability as to “an order in writing”. In spite of these differences, the two provisions are substantially the same and impose on the assessing authority a duty to assess the tax after hearing such evidence

COMMR.OF I.T. RKAJAHMUNDRY vs. T.RAMI REDDY AND ORS

In the result, for the above reasons, we set aside the orders

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

Section 10 of the Act requires the Commissioner to assess the amount of tax due from the dealer and does not impose any liability as to “an order in writing”. In spite of these differences, the two provisions are substantially the same and impose on the assessing authority a duty to assess the tax after hearing such evidence

The Commissioner of Income Tax vs. M/s GRK Prasad AND others

In the result, for the above reasons, we set aside the orders

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

Section 10 of the Act requires the Commissioner to assess the amount of tax due from the dealer and does not impose any liability as to “an order in writing”. In spite of these differences, the two provisions are substantially the same and impose on the assessing authority a duty to assess the tax after hearing such evidence

Commissioner of Income Tax, vs. M/s Y.Ramakrishna and Others

In the result, for the above reasons, we set aside the orders

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

Section 10 of the Act requires the Commissioner to assess the amount of tax due from the dealer and does not impose any liability as to “an order in writing”. In spite of these differences, the two provisions are substantially the same and impose on the assessing authority a duty to assess the tax after hearing such evidence

The Commissioner of income tax, vs. M/s.Y.Ramulu and Others

In the result, for the above reasons, we set aside the orders

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

Section 10 of the Act requires the Commissioner to assess the amount of tax due from the dealer and does not impose any liability as to “an order in writing”. In spite of these differences, the two provisions are substantially the same and impose on the assessing authority a duty to assess the tax after hearing such evidence

The Commissioner of Income Tax vs. M/s.B.Satyanarayana AND Others

In the result, for the above reasons, we set aside the orders

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

Section 10 of the Act requires the Commissioner to assess the amount of tax due from the dealer and does not impose any liability as to “an order in writing”. In spite of these differences, the two provisions are substantially the same and impose on the assessing authority a duty to assess the tax after hearing such evidence