The Commissioner of Income Tax vs. M/s Kaveri Bar AND Restaurant,

Bench: ABHINAND KUMAR SHAVILI,V RAMASUBRAMANIAN

disallowing lesser amount under Section 36(i)(iii) of the Income Tax Act in the assessment order under Section 143(3

The Director of Income Tax, (Exemptions) vs. Royal Education Society

In the result, the appeal is disposed of

Bench: ANIS,SANJAY KUMAR

143(3) read with Section 147 of the Act determined the income of the assessee at Rs.51,71,70,670/- and made following additions: (a) disallowance

THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-IV vs. M/S QUALITY CARE INDIA LTD

Bench: A.SHANKAR NARAYANA,V RAMASUBRAMANIAN

143(3) r/w Section 153A. After completion of the assessment, the Assessing Officer reopened the assessment under Section 147 by issuing a notice under Section 148, on 31.03.2011. 5. The reason for reopening of the assessment was that while initiating proceedings under Section 147, an amount of Rs.4,73,75,000/- was identified to the assets acquired, which had been

COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-TDA vs. M/S.IDEA CELLULAR LTD

Bench: SUJOY PAUL,NAMAVARAPU RAJESHWAR RAO

143(3) of the Act.” 4. The enhanced disallowance was deleted by the Commission of Income Tax (Appeals) observing that the assessee had made disallowance Rs.1,04,90,253/- under Section

The Commissioner of Income Tax(Central) vs. M/s.Madhu Enterprises

Bench: The Learned

143(3) of the Act restricting the deduction under Section 54F to ₹30 crores, as against ₹90 crores claimed by the Assessee. 7. The Assessee had deposited the consideration in the capital gains account in two tranches – ₹30 crores on 28.07.2011 and ₹60 crores on 29.07.2011. The AO noted that the Assessee had paid a certain amount to a charitable

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

Bench: ABHINAND KUMAR SHAVILI,V RAMASUBRAMANIAN

disallowed deduction and added back the amount on the ground that it was 'inadvertently' allowed by the AO without verifying the reversal of provision; • that the assessment was made under Section 143(3

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

The appeals stand dismissed

Bench: SANJAY KUMAR,GUDISEVA SHYAM PRASAD

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 an appeal before the Commissioner of Income Tax, (Appeals), [CIT(A)]. Vide order dated 30.12.2014, the CIT(A) deleted the whole addition. Thereafter, it was noticed that the assessee had owned seven units out of which four

Andhra Pradesh Fibres Limited, vs. Addl. Commissioner of Income Tax,

143(3) of the Act was erroneous in the eyes of law when the CIT in his order u/s 263 has clearly brought out that plain reading of the sub- section 9 of Section 80IA of the I.T. Act makes it amply clear that where any amount of profits and gains in the case of an assessee is claimed

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

143(3) of the Act. Objections were invited with regard to the nature of the concern – whether it is a firm or AoP; justification for the expenditure claimed; and profit/loss shown in the return. The assessees filed their explanation. They contended that, due to prohibition on the sale of arrack introduced from 30th September, 1993 by the Government, the whereabouts

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

143(3) of the Act. Objections were invited with regard to the nature of the concern – whether it is a firm or AoP; justification for the expenditure claimed; and profit/loss shown in the return. The assessees filed their explanation. They contended that, due to prohibition on the sale of arrack introduced from 30th September, 1993 by the Government, the whereabouts

The commissioner of Income Tax vs. M/s.M.Narayana Choudary and Others

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

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

143(3) of the Act. Objections were invited with regard to the nature of the concern – whether it is a firm or AoP; justification for the expenditure claimed; and profit/loss shown in the return. The assessees filed their explanation. They contended that, due to prohibition on the sale of arrack introduced from 30th September, 1993 by the Government, the whereabouts

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

143(3) of the Act. Objections were invited with regard to the nature of the concern – whether it is a firm or AoP; justification for the expenditure claimed; and profit/loss shown in the return. The assessees filed their explanation. They contended that, due to prohibition on the sale of arrack introduced from 30th September, 1993 by the Government, the whereabouts

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

143(3) of the Act. Objections were invited with regard to the nature of the concern – whether it is a firm or AoP; justification for the expenditure claimed; and profit/loss shown in the return. The assessees filed their explanation. They contended that, due to prohibition on the sale of arrack introduced from 30th September, 1993 by the Government, the whereabouts

Commissioner of Income Tax vs. Ms. B.krishna Murthy AND Others

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

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

143(3) of the Act. Objections were invited with regard to the nature of the concern – whether it is a firm or AoP; justification for the expenditure claimed; and profit/loss shown in the return. The assessees filed their explanation. They contended that, due to prohibition on the sale of arrack introduced from 30th September, 1993 by the Government, the whereabouts

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

143(3) of the Act. Objections were invited with regard to the nature of the concern – whether it is a firm or AoP; justification for the expenditure claimed; and profit/loss shown in the return. The assessees filed their explanation. They contended that, due to prohibition on the sale of arrack introduced from 30th September, 1993 by the Government, the whereabouts

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

143(3) of the Act. Objections were invited with regard to the nature of the concern – whether it is a firm or AoP; justification for the expenditure claimed; and profit/loss shown in the return. The assessees filed their explanation. They contended that, due to prohibition on the sale of arrack introduced from 30th September, 1993 by the Government, the whereabouts

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

143(3) of the Act. Objections were invited with regard to the nature of the concern – whether it is a firm or AoP; justification for the expenditure claimed; and profit/loss shown in the return. The assessees filed their explanation. They contended that, due to prohibition on the sale of arrack introduced from 30th September, 1993 by the Government, the whereabouts

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

143(3) of the Act. Objections were invited with regard to the nature of the concern – whether it is a firm or AoP; justification for the expenditure claimed; and profit/loss shown in the return. The assessees filed their explanation. They contended that, due to prohibition on the sale of arrack introduced from 30th September, 1993 by the Government, the whereabouts

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

143(3) of the Act. Objections were invited with regard to the nature of the concern – whether it is a firm or AoP; justification for the expenditure claimed; and profit/loss shown in the return. The assessees filed their explanation. They contended that, due to prohibition on the sale of arrack introduced from 30th September, 1993 by the Government, the whereabouts