COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-II, HYDERABAD vs. M/s. The A.P.Vardhaman(Mahila)Cooperative Urban

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) of the Andhra Pradesh Cooperative Societies Rules, 1964 (the Societies Rules). The assessing officer came

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) of the Andhra Pradesh Cooperative Societies Rules, 1964 (the Societies Rules). The assessing officer came

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) of the Andhra Pradesh Cooperative Societies Rules, 1964 (the Societies Rules). The assessing officer came

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/-.

7. Mr.S.R.Ashok, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the Revenue, on the other hand, at the outset, invited our attention to Section 145 of the Act, in particular sub-section (2) thereof, and submitted that neither the accounting standards nor the Guidance Note issued by ICAI could be taken recourse to in the absence of a notification being issued

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 of Rs.74,08,964/- under the provisions of Section 80JJAA of the Act were proposed. The 5 assessee thereupon filed objections before the Dispute Resolution Panel contesting all the additions. The Dispute Resolution Panel, however rejected the objections preferred by the assessee. The assessee thereupon filed an appeal before the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (hereinafter referred

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

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

The appeals are hereby dismissed

Bench: RAMESH RANGANATHAN,KONGARA VIJAYA LAKSHMI

7. In view of amendment, a show cause notice was issued on 20.06.2012 to the assessee-Trust to show cause as to why registration granted under Section 12AA of the Act, be not cancelled. 8. The assessee filed a detailed reply to the notice. In the reply, the works and objects of the assessee-Trust were mentioned. It was further

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

Bench: RAMESH RANGANATHAN,M.SATYANARAYANA MURTHY

disallowed to the petitioner. It is contended that like any other fiscal statute, the grant of input tax is a concession or relaxation and nobody is expected to claim it as a matter of vested right. The denial of the benefit of availing input tax credit to the purchases from dealers who opt for compounding facility cannot

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

Bench: SUJOY PAUL,NAMAVARAPU RAJESHWAR RAO

7. In the present case the Assessing Officer has not recorded his satisfaction regarding the correctness of the self disallowance made by the assessee under Section 14A, as is mandatory in terms of sub section (2

COMMR.OF I.T. RKAJAHMUNDRY vs. T.RAMI REDDY AND ORS

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 GRK 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

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

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, 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

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

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-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

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