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

Appeals of the Revenue are dismissed

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

199 cannot be applied to deny credit of TDS. The ITAT upheld the order of the CIT (A) on the ground that the issue was a debatable one and fell outside the purview of Section 154. 76. For AY 1996-97, the credit of TDS was Rs. 52,92,346 and the tax deposited by the Assessee on behalf

Samaj Seva Nidhi, vs. ACIT [Inv] circle-II

Bench: A RAMALINGESWARA RAO,DILIP B. BHOSALE

199 ITR 819 (Cal) 2. (2001) 247 ITR 201 (SC) 3. (2003) 261 ITR 190 (Delhi) 4. (2008) 303 ITR 111 (Delhi) THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE DILIP B. BHOSALE AND THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE A.RAMALINGESWARA RAO I.T.T.A. No.67 of 2004 JUDGMENT: (Per Hon’ble Sri Justice A.Ramalingeswara Rao) This appeal was filed under Section 260A of the Income

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

disallowance is made only for this year. Since business income has to be as stated in section 29 by granting all deductions provided under sections 30 to 43D which includes depreciation under section 32, the assessee is entitled is the case pressed before us by the senior counsel appearing for the assessee. We have no doubt in our mind that

Commissioner of Income Tax vs. Agricultural Market Committee

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

199 ITR 43 that double deduction for an item should not be inferred and, therefore, the payment of liability of old loan was not allowed as application of income and penalty proceedings under Section 271(1)(c) of the Act were also initiated for claiming inaccurate expenditure and concealment of income of Rs.2,81,33,700/-. Facts of ITA No.512

The Commissioner of Income Tax vs. M.Venkata Krishna Mohan

Bench: RAMESH RANGANATHAN,M.SATYANARAYANA MURTHY

Section 143(3) of the Act and the income of the appellant was determined at Rs.84,95,035/-. The assessing Officer (hereinafter „AO‟) came to the conclusion that since the payment of Rs.1 Crore was absent in the earlier license agreement and it was for use of the brand, the expenditure of Rs.1 Crore cannot be related to the business