Commissioner of Income Tax -II vs. The Agrasen Coop. Urban Bank Ltd.,

In the result, for the above reasons, these appeals fail and

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

disallowed by the assessing officer on the ground that the assessee did not obtain prior approval in respect of investments against statutory reserves as required under Section 46 of the Andhra Pradesh Cooperative Societies Act, 1964 (the Societies Act) and Rule 37(2

Commissioner of Income Tax-II, vs. M/S The A.P.Mahesh Coop. Urban Bank Ltd,

In the result, for the above reasons, these appeals fail and

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

disallowed by the assessing officer on the ground that the assessee did not obtain prior approval in respect of investments against statutory reserves as required under Section 46 of the Andhra Pradesh Cooperative Societies Act, 1964 (the Societies Act) and Rule 37(2

The Commissioner of Income Tax-II vs. The Andhra Bank Employees Co.Operative Bank Limited

In the result, for the above reasons, these appeals fail and

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

disallowed by the assessing officer on the ground that the assessee did not obtain prior approval in respect of investments against statutory reserves as required under Section 46 of the Andhra Pradesh Cooperative Societies Act, 1964 (the Societies Act) and Rule 37(2

The Commissioner of Income Tax-II vs. M/s.Pact Securities AND Financial Services Ltd

Bench: The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals), The Assessees Had Called In Question The Orders Of Assessing Officer (For Short ‘The A.O.’), Who, While Completing The Assessment For The Relevant Assessment Years Disallowed The Deduction Of The “Lease Equalization” Charges From The Lease Rental Income. The Disallowed Amounts By The Cit (Appeals) In These Appeals Are Of Rs.48,56,224/-, Rs,44,18,245/- & Rs.13,16,123/-.

Section 142 (1) and 143 (2) were issued, in response to which, Chartered Accountant of the assessee appeared before the A.O. and furnished details called for. The assessment was then completed and the A.O. disallowed

The Commissioner of Income tax vs. M/s. Nirmala Constructions

The appeal stands dismissed

Bench: Cit(A) After The Amendment U/S. 80P(2)(A)(Iii) Of The Act? Iv) Whether, In The Facts & Circumstances Of The Case The

Section 80P(2)(a)(iv) and allow the deduction acording to law. 7. The Id. A.R. Submits that the assessee has received interest from other Co-operative Societies/Banks and after deduction the interest paid to State Government on loan, the net amount of interest amounting to Rs. 58,84,711.46 was shown as interest income and claimed as deduction

THE PRL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-II, VISAKHAPATNAM vs. L SURYAKANTHAM, VISAKHAPATNAM

In the result, the appeal fails and is hereby dismissed

Bench: RAMESH RANGANATHAN,KONGARA VIJAYA LAKSHMI

disallowance under Section 14A read with Rule 8D(2)(iii) to the extent of Rs.20,51,175/- and disallowance of Rs.74

PRL COMMR OF INCOME TAX, TIRUPATI, CHITTOOR DIST vs. V DWARAKANATH REDDY, CHITTOOR

The appeals are hereby dismissed

Bench: RAMESH RANGANATHAN,KONGARA VIJAYA LAKSHMI

Section 2(15). The Tribunal, therefore, rightly directed the Assessing Officer to delete disallowance of exemption. 74. It cannot possibly

The Commissioner of Income Tax (Central) vs. G Radha Charan Reddy

Bench: RAMESH RANGANATHAN,M.SATYANARAYANA MURTHY

disallowing the input tax credit. The petitioner has approached this Court challenging Ext.P5 order and also challenging the constitutional validity of Section 11(5)(c) of the KVAT Act. 2

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

Bench: SUJOY PAUL,NAMAVARAPU RAJESHWAR RAO

disallowance as contained in sub-sections (2) and (3) of section 14A, which are procedural. The disallowance is strictly to be made

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

Bench: A RAMALINGESWARA RAO,DILIP B. BHOSALE

disallowing the benefit of accumulation by the assessee of an amount of Rs.3,00,000/- under Section 11(2) of the Act?” The assessee

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

disallowing the expenditure claimed to the extent of 50%. S ri Y.Ratnakar and Sri A.V.Krishna Koundinya made submissions for the assesses. They would contend that estimation of 40% of the purchase price as gross profit is unreasonable, arbitrary and without any basis. The Tribunal was, therefore, correct in estimating the sales turnover at eight (8) times of the purchase price

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

disallowing the expenditure claimed to the extent of 50%. S ri Y.Ratnakar and Sri A.V.Krishna Koundinya made submissions for the assesses. They would contend that estimation of 40% of the purchase price as gross profit is unreasonable, arbitrary and without any basis. The Tribunal was, therefore, correct in estimating the sales turnover at eight (8) times of the purchase price

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

disallowing the expenditure claimed to the extent of 50%. S ri Y.Ratnakar and Sri A.V.Krishna Koundinya made submissions for the assesses. They would contend that estimation of 40% of the purchase price as gross profit is unreasonable, arbitrary and without any basis. The Tribunal was, therefore, correct in estimating the sales turnover at eight (8) times of the purchase price

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

disallowing the expenditure claimed to the extent of 50%. S ri Y.Ratnakar and Sri A.V.Krishna Koundinya made submissions for the assesses. They would contend that estimation of 40% of the purchase price as gross profit is unreasonable, arbitrary and without any basis. The Tribunal was, therefore, correct in estimating the sales turnover at eight (8) times of the purchase price

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

disallowing the expenditure claimed to the extent of 50%. S ri Y.Ratnakar and Sri A.V.Krishna Koundinya made submissions for the assesses. They would contend that estimation of 40% of the purchase price as gross profit is unreasonable, arbitrary and without any basis. The Tribunal was, therefore, correct in estimating the sales turnover at eight (8) times of the purchase price

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

disallowing the expenditure claimed to the extent of 50%. S ri Y.Ratnakar and Sri A.V.Krishna Koundinya made submissions for the assesses. They would contend that estimation of 40% of the purchase price as gross profit is unreasonable, arbitrary and without any basis. The Tribunal was, therefore, correct in estimating the sales turnover at eight (8) times of the purchase price

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

disallowing the expenditure claimed to the extent of 50%. S ri Y.Ratnakar and Sri A.V.Krishna Koundinya made submissions for the assesses. They would contend that estimation of 40% of the purchase price as gross profit is unreasonable, arbitrary and without any basis. The Tribunal was, therefore, correct in estimating the sales turnover at eight (8) times of the purchase price

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

disallowing the expenditure claimed to the extent of 50%. S ri Y.Ratnakar and Sri A.V.Krishna Koundinya made submissions for the assesses. They would contend that estimation of 40% of the purchase price as gross profit is unreasonable, arbitrary and without any basis. The Tribunal was, therefore, correct in estimating the sales turnover at eight (8) times of the purchase price