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

Bench: A RAMALINGESWARA RAO,DILIP B. BHOSALE

1. (1993) 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

THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX III, vs. M/S. SAVIJANA SEA FOODS PVT. LTD.,

Appeals of the Revenue are dismissed

Bench: J SREENIVAS RAO,ALOK ARADHE

1 (SC) which has been followed in Hero Cycles v. CIT (2015) 379 ITR 347. The ratio of the decision of the Bombay High Court in CIT v. Lokhandwala Constructions Industries Ltd. (2003) 260 ITR 579 (Bom) was rightly relied upon by the ITAT to allow the plea of the Assessee and treat the said interest payments as revenue expenditure

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

Appeals of the Revenue are dismissed

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

1 (SC) which has been followed in Hero Cycles v. CIT (2015) 379 ITR 347. The ratio of the decision of the Bombay High Court in CIT v. Lokhandwala Constructions Industries Ltd. (2003) 260 ITR 579 (Bom) was rightly relied upon by the ITAT to allow the plea of the Assessee and treat the said interest payments as revenue expenditure

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