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

disallowance of expenditure. The tax, if is deducted at any time during the financial year and paid before the date of filing of the return, the Legislature intended to allow deduction on such expenditure with an intention to permit additional time for most deductors upto September of the next financial year. 17.1: We draw further support from the fact that

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

1A) of the Act was also liable to be paid. 81. While the AO levied interest, the CIT (A) following the order in AY 1995-96 where it held that the Assessee was not liable to deduct TDS in respect of rent received on behalf of others, cancelled the interest. The ITAT agreed with the CIT (A). 82. Under Section

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

Appeals of the Revenue are dismissed

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

1A) of the Act was also liable to be paid. 81. While the AO levied interest, the CIT (A) following the order in AY 1995-96 where it held that the Assessee was not liable to deduct TDS in respect of rent received on behalf of others, cancelled the interest. The ITAT agreed with the CIT (A). 82. Under Section

THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX vs. K.VENKATESWARLU

Accordingly they are dismissed

Bench: V.ESWARAIAH,K.G.SHANKAR

disallowance which on the basis of information available in such return was prima facie admissible but which was not claimed in the return or in cases where any loss carried forward, or deduction or allowance claimed in the return which on the basis of information available in such return was prima facie inadmissible. In the present case, therefore, when there

The Commissioner of Income Tax -1 vs. R.S. Sudheesh

Section 80 1A of the Income Tax Act ? Learned counsel appearing for the parties have confined their submissions to substantial question nos.1 and 2. 4. Substantial question no.1 deals with payment of bonus by the assessee in the Assessment Year 2003-04 claimable and paid in the Assessment Year 2002-03. The Department, raising similar questions of law, filed

Andhra PRadesh Pradesh Fibres Limited vs. Assistant commissioner of Income Tax

In the result, the order passed by the

Bench: V.V.S.RAO,SANJAY KUMAR

1A) of the Act and was rectified under Section 154 of the Act on 27.10.1998. The case was selected for scrutiny. Thereupon notices were issued under Section 143(2) and 143(1) to the assessee. The assessing officer by an order dated 26.03.1999 passed an order of assessment and inter alia quantified the total taxable income at Rs.8

M/S.MALLIKARJUNA RICE INDUSTRIES vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER

Bench: N.TUKARAMJI,UJJAL BHUYAN

Section 14g of the Act when rhe original assessment was completed under Secrion 1a-l(l) ol the Act. 5. Appcllant befbre us rs a pannership firm and is an assessec rurcle r rhe Act. Appellant is engaged in the business of rice irrclrrstries. For rhe assessmen t year 199g-99, appellant had filed rcrrrrl of incomc which was subjected

The Commisioner of Income TAx-1 vs. Divya Shakti Granites Ltd.,

Bench: RAMESH RANGANATHAN,M.SATYANARAYANA MURTHY

section 55 of the Transfer of Property Act, 1882 mounted on the shoulders of vendor to vouch a clear and marketable title, unless contrary is contracted. It has been held by the Privy Council in MOTILAL vs. NANHELAL5 that there is an implied covenant by the vendor to do all things necessary to effect a transfer; so when a vendor