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

139(4) or (5) of the Act; (b) if any person fails to comply with all the terms of a notice issued under Section 142(1) of the Act; (b) if any person fails to comply with a direction issued under Section 142(2A) of the Act; or (d) if a person having made a return fails to comply with

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

139(4) or (5) of the Act; (b) if any person fails to comply with all the terms of a notice issued under Section 142(1) of the Act; (b) if any person fails to comply with a direction issued under Section 142(2A) of the Act; or (d) if a person having made a return fails to comply with

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

139(4) or (5) of the Act; (b) if any person fails to comply with all the terms of a notice issued under Section 142(1) of the Act; (b) if any person fails to comply with a direction issued under Section 142(2A) of the Act; or (d) if a person having made a return fails to comply with

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

139(4) or (5) of the Act; (b) if any person fails to comply with all the terms of a notice issued under Section 142(1) of the Act; (b) if any person fails to comply with a direction issued under Section 142(2A) of the Act; or (d) if a person having made a return fails to comply with

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

139(4) or (5) of the Act; (b) if any person fails to comply with all the terms of a notice issued under Section 142(1) of the Act; (b) if any person fails to comply with a direction issued under Section 142(2A) of the Act; or (d) if a person having made a return fails to comply with

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

139(4) or (5) of the Act; (b) if any person fails to comply with all the terms of a notice issued under Section 142(1) of the Act; (b) if any person fails to comply with a direction issued under Section 142(2A) of the Act; or (d) if a person having made a return fails to comply with

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

139(4) or (5) of the Act; (b) if any person fails to comply with all the terms of a notice issued under Section 142(1) of the Act; (b) if any person fails to comply with a direction issued under Section 142(2A) of the Act; or (d) if a person having made a return fails to comply with

Commissioner of Income Tax, Rajahmundry. vs. m/s Ganesh Arrack Contractors,

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

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

139(4) or (5) of the Act; (b) if any person fails to comply with all the terms of a notice issued under Section 142(1) of the Act; (b) if any person fails to comply with a direction issued under Section 142(2A) of the Act; or (d) if a person having made a return fails to comply with

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

139(4) or (5) of the Act; (b) if any person fails to comply with all the terms of a notice issued under Section 142(1) of the Act; (b) if any person fails to comply with a direction issued under Section 142(2A) of the Act; or (d) if a person having made a return fails to comply with

The Commissioner of Income Tax-II vs. m/S.M.Ventakteswara Rao AND Others

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

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

139(4) or (5) of the Act; (b) if any person fails to comply with all the terms of a notice issued under Section 142(1) of the Act; (b) if any person fails to comply with a direction issued under Section 142(2A) of the Act; or (d) if a person having made a return fails to comply with

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

139(4) or (5) of the Act; (b) if any person fails to comply with all the terms of a notice issued under Section 142(1) of the Act; (b) if any person fails to comply with a direction issued under Section 142(2A) of the Act; or (d) if a person having made a return fails to comply with

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

139(4) or (5) of the Act; (b) if any person fails to comply with all the terms of a notice issued under Section 142(1) of the Act; (b) if any person fails to comply with a direction issued under Section 142(2A) of the Act; or (d) if a person having made a return fails to comply with

Commissioner of Income tax-V, vs. M/s. INTRACK INC,

4. Prior to the amendment, the said provision read as under:- Section 40(a)(ia) : any interest, commission or brokerage, rent, royalty fees for professional services or fees for technical services payable to a resident, or amounts payable to a contractor or sub-contractor, being resident, for carrying out any work (including supply of labour for carrying out any work

THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-III vs. M/S. SOMA ENTERPRISES LTD

The appeal is disposed off accordingly

Bench: The Hon'Ble Mr. Justice Ravi Malimath

4 amounting to Rs.8,41,36,636/- which includes depreciation of the building block of Rs.4,92,10,011/-. The Assessing Officer came to the conclusion that the asseessee is not entitled to claim deduction of any amount twice, while arriving at the income of the concern. Accordingly, the depreciation claimed by the assessee in respect of the buildings amounting

Commissioner of Income tAx, vs. Sri Padala Ramakrishna Reddy,

The appeals stand dismissed

Bench: RAMESH RANGANATHAN,M.SATYANARAYANA MURTHY

4. The Tribunal took the view that it did because in "common parlance and commercial sense raw diamonds are not the same thing as polished and cut diamonds. The two are different entities in the commercial world. Though the chemical composition remains the same the physical characteristics of shape and class, etc., are substantially different". It would appear that

AD-AGE OUTDOOR ADVERTISING P LTD., HYDERABAD. vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONEER OF INCOME TAX, HYDERABAD.

Bench: T.VINOD KUMAR,M.S.RAMACHANDRA RAO

4. By way of instant appeal under Section 260-A of Income Tax Act, 1961, (for short, ‘the Act’), the assessee has assailed order dated 25.5.2007, passed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT), Chandigarh in ITA No. 1044/Chandi/2005. The appeal was admitted for hearing vide order dated 11.10.2007 on the following substantial questions of law:- “1) Whether

The Commissioner of Incoe Tax III, vs. Raj Breeders and Hatcheries (PVT) Liited,

Bench: RAMESH RANGANATHAN,M.SATYANARAYANA MURTHY

4. By way of instant appeal under Section 260-A of Income Tax Act, 1961, (for short, ‘the Act’), the assessee has assailed order dated 25.5.2007, passed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT), Chandigarh in ITA No. 1044/Chandi/2005. The appeal was admitted for hearing vide order dated 11.10.2007 on the following substantial questions of law:- “1) Whether

Commissioner of income tax, vs. M/s. R.K. Palace,

Bench: RAMESH RANGANATHAN,M.SATYANARAYANA MURTHY

4. By way of instant appeal under Section 260-A of Income Tax Act, 1961, (for short, ‘the Act’), the assessee has assailed order dated 25.5.2007, passed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT), Chandigarh in ITA No. 1044/Chandi/2005. The appeal was admitted for hearing vide order dated 11.10.2007 on the following substantial questions of law:- “1) Whether