COMMR.OF I.T. A.P.I HYD vs. DIAMOND HATCHERIES (P) LTD

Appeal is allowed

disallowed the deduction of Rs.10,19,200/- under Section 80M of the Act claimed by the assessee and also estimated

The Pr. Commissioner of income Tax-4 vs. M/s. Pavani Structurals Pvt. Ltd.

Accordingly, the appeal fails and is dismissed

Bench: :

disallowance made by the Assessing Officer on account of Bogus Loss from share transaction amounting to Rs.71,38,200/- from the scrip of “First Financial Services Ltd.” was 2 justified in view of the fact that the said company was in the list of entities involved in doing suspicious transaction in penny stocks and that the assessee, who was specialized

M/S AVANTHI BUSINESS MACHINES LTD., HYDERABAD. vs. DCIT [ASSTS] CIRCLE -1 [1] HYDERABAD.

Appeal is disposed of

Bench: N.TUKARAMJI,UJJAL BHUYAN

200 i. Appellant had filed return of income on 28.1 1.2000 for the said assessment year declaring tnxable income at Rs.86,284.00. Initially the return \ ras processed under Section 1a3(1) of the Act by accepting the same. l-ater on, the same was reopened, whereafter assessment order was passed under Section 143(3) read with Section

The Commissioner of Income Tax V vs. Smt. Ch. Uma

200, 206, 207, 227 of 2013, 92 & 93 of 2014 Dated this the 22nd day of July, 2021 Bechu Kurian Thomas, J. This batch of appeals relates to the assessment years 2004-05 till 2009-10. The issues raised in all these appeals are similar if not identical and hence we heard these appeals together. Except in two appeals

Commissioner of Income Tax vs. M/s Ch.Veeraju AND co.

200, 206, 207, 227 of 2013, 92 & 93 of 2014 Dated this the 22nd day of July, 2021 Bechu Kurian Thomas, J. This batch of appeals relates to the assessment years 2004-05 till 2009-10. The issues raised in all these appeals are similar if not identical and hence we heard these appeals together. Except in two appeals

Commissioner of Income Tax - VI vs. M/s. S.P. Steels

200, 206, 207, 227 of 2013, 92 & 93 of 2014 Dated this the 22nd day of July, 2021 Bechu Kurian Thomas, J. This batch of appeals relates to the assessment years 2004-05 till 2009-10. The issues raised in all these appeals are similar if not identical and hence we heard these appeals together. Except in two appeals

Commissioner of Income Tax-II vs. Energy Solutions International India Pvt Ltd.,

Bench: J. UMA DEVI,V RAMASUBRAMANIAN

200 (207) 5 273 ITR 50 - 15 - ITA No. 383 of 2016 from the precincts of Section 260A which employs the expression ‘substantial question of law’. C. AS TO BURDEN OF PROOF AND IMPOSSIBILITY OF ITS DISCHARGE: (i) As already mentioned above, the burden of proving the expenditure incurred ‘wholly and exclusively’ for the purpose of business

The Pr. Commissioner of Income-Tax-1 vs. M/s. New River Software System Pvt Ltd.,

The appeals are dismissed

Bench: RAMESH RANGANATHAN,M.SATYANARAYANA MURTHY

disallowance of interest of `75,47,897/- on unsecured loans was added under Section 68 of the Act and an amount of `1,51,200

The Commissioner of Income Tax-I vs. Adaptec [India] Ltd

The appeals are dismissed

disallowance of interest of `75,47,897/- on unsecured loans was added under Section 68 of the Act and an amount of `1,51,200

AD-AGE OUTDOOR ADVERTISING P LTD., HYDERABAD. vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONEER OF INCOME TAX, HYDERABAD.

Bench: T.VINOD KUMAR,M.S.RAMACHANDRA RAO

disallowing the deduction of Rs. 45,00,000/-, the CIT(A)recorded the following reasons:- a) As; there was no specific provision under Section 36 of the Act relating to contribution to leave encashment fund, the amount of Rs. 45,00,000/- paid into the said fund by the assessee had no statutory recognition. b) There was no ascertained liability

The Commissioner of Incoe Tax III, vs. Raj Breeders and Hatcheries (PVT) Liited,

Bench: RAMESH RANGANATHAN,M.SATYANARAYANA MURTHY

disallowing the deduction of Rs. 45,00,000/-, the CIT(A)recorded the following reasons:- a) As; there was no specific provision under Section 36 of the Act relating to contribution to leave encashment fund, the amount of Rs. 45,00,000/- paid into the said fund by the assessee had no statutory recognition. b) There was no ascertained liability

Commissioner of income tax, vs. M/s. R.K. Palace,

Bench: RAMESH RANGANATHAN,M.SATYANARAYANA MURTHY

disallowing the deduction of Rs. 45,00,000/-, the CIT(A)recorded the following reasons:- a) As; there was no specific provision under Section 36 of the Act relating to contribution to leave encashment fund, the amount of Rs. 45,00,000/- paid into the said fund by the assessee had no statutory recognition. b) There was no ascertained liability

Commissioner of Income Tax-I vs. Agricultural Market Committee

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

disallowing the deduction of Rs. 45,00,000/-, the CIT(A)recorded the following reasons:- a) As; there was no specific provision under Section 36 of the Act relating to contribution to leave encashment fund, the amount of Rs. 45,00,000/- paid into the said fund by the assessee had no statutory recognition. b) There was no ascertained liability

The Commissioner of Income Tax -II vs. M/S Heritage Foods India Limited,

disallowed by the Assessing Officer. 6. Feeling aggrieved by the order of the Assessing Officer, the assessee filed appeal before the Commissioner of Income Tax(Appeals), who in view of the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in India Cements Ltd. Vs. CIT ( 60 ITR 52 ) and one C.B.D.T’s Circular No.56, held that the expenditure relatable

The Commissioner of Income Tax (Central) vs. K. V. Srinivasa Rao

disallowed. These were put during the cross-examination of Bankey, PW 30. They are: Q. Did you state to the investigating officer that the gang rolled the dead bodies of Nathi, Saktu and Bharat Singh and scrutinized them, and did you tell him that the face of Asa Ram resembled that of the deceased Bharat Singh? Q. Did you state

Kuchipudi Krishna Kishore vs. The DCIT

Accordingly the appeals deserves to be allowed by setting aside the impugned

Bench: P.SAM KOSHY,N.TUKARAMJI

200'r-02) dated 22-12-2006 preferred against the order of the commissioner of rncome Tax (Appears), -Ir Hyderabad dated 30-03-2005 in rr.A. No. 213, 214 & 21s / Dcrr 2(r ) Hyd/ crr (A) lly 04-05 preferred against the order of the Deputy commissioner of rncome tax, circle -2 (1), Hyderabad dated

The Commissioner of Income Tax vs. Shri Byru Venkateswarlu

Appeal is dismissed

Bench: RAMESH RANGANATHAN,M.SATYANARAYANA MURTHY

Section 271(1)(c) solely because the additions were confirmed in the quantum appeal, without examining the issue again in penalty proceedings with reference to the law and principles underlying the levy of penalty?” (2 of 10) [ITA-341/2005] 3. Counsel for the appellant has contended that the Assessing Officer has considered the case of the assessee and observed

The Commissioner of Income Tax -III vs. Sri T.C. Reddy

The appeal stands dismissed

disallowance of said sum in the hands of the assessee is not justified. 21. "The total consideration paid by the assessee company to acquire 134.3 bighas of land as per the submission of AR is Rs. 119527000/- which includes Rs.75967000/- paid to M/s Mrigiya Electronics Inds. Pvt. Ltd. And balance to the land owners direclty. The AO has considered direct