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

201, then, for the purpose of this sub-clause, it shall be deemed that the assessee has deducted and paid the tax on such sum on the date of furnishing of return of income by the resident payee referred to in the said proviso. Explanation: For the purposes of this sub- clause,- (i) “commission or brokerage” shall have the same

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

Appeal is disposed of

Bench: N.TUKARAMJI,UJJAL BHUYAN

disallowance made by the assessing oflicer under Section 43B of the Act for al amount of Rs'2,74,O27 OO on account of late payment of Provrdent Fund (PF) and Employees State Insurance (ESI)? iii) Whether on the facts and in the circumstalces of the case Tribunal uras justilied in confrrming the order of the first appellate authority

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

disallowed as business expenditure. 71. Further as rightly pointed out, AS 2 would apply in terms of which, with ITA 210/2003 & connected matters Page 31 of 36 the Assessee following the CCM, the expenditure incurred subsequent to the completion of the project cannot be attributed to work and had to be allowed only as revenue expenditure. Consequently, the question

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

Appeals of the Revenue are dismissed

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

disallowed as business expenditure. 71. Further as rightly pointed out, AS 2 would apply in terms of which, with ITA 210/2003 & connected matters Page 31 of 36 the Assessee following the CCM, the expenditure incurred subsequent to the completion of the project cannot be attributed to work and had to be allowed only as revenue expenditure. Consequently, the question

Mr. K.S.N.Raju vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax,

Bench: ANIS,SANJAY KUMAR

Sections 302, 201 r/w 34 of the Indian Penal Code and acquitting co-accused Nandkishor Balreddy Kolyame (Koltame) and Subhash Virbhadrappa Kumbhar. 2. Appellant Subhash Ganesh Gir has filed Criminal Appeal No. 418 of 2016 taking exception to the impugned Judgment and Order referred to above, whereas; State has filed two appeals viz. Criminal Appeal

SIEMENS AG.,FEDERAL REPUBLIC OF GERMANY vs. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX

Bench: C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY,T.AMARNATH GOUD

201 ITA-10-2005 (O&M) Date of Decision: 03.12.2025 INDUSTRIAL CABLES PVT. LTD. ...Appellant Vs. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX & ANR. …Respondents CORAM:- HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE JAGMOHAN BANSAL HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AMARINDER SINGH GREWAL Present:- Mr. Divya Suri, Advocate for the petitioner Mr. Saurabh Kapoor, Advocate for respondent-Income Tax Department *** JAGMOHAN BANSAL, J. (ORAL) 1. The appellant

Principal Commissioner of Income Tax-1 vs. M/s Sri Sri Gruha Nirman India Pvt. Ltd.

Appeals are dismissed

Bench: P.SAM KOSHY,NARSING RAO NANDIKONDA

disallowance under Section 40(a)(ia) of the Act could not be sustained. 6. We may note that this view has been accepted by the Supreme Court in Commissioner of Income-tax v. Ahmedabad Stamp Vendors Association, [2012] 25 taxmann.com 201

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

Bench: A RAMALINGESWARA RAO,DILIP B. BHOSALE

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 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (for short, the Act), against

The Commissioner of Income Tax, vs. M/s. Coromandel Wines,

Accordingly the appeals filed by the Revenue are allowed, and the

Bench: Or After Obtaining The Licence.

201, 203, 226, 227, 229, 230, 288, 437, 454, 468, 474, 481, 483, 485, 492 and 504 of 2010 COMMON JUDGMENT: (per Hon’ble Sri Justice V.V.S.Rao) In all these cases the assessees were granted a licence under the Andhra Pradesh Indian Liquor and Foreign Liquor Rules, 1970 and the Andhra Pradesh Excise Act, 1968. The licence enabled the assessee

Commissioner of Income Tax vs. Agricultural Market Committee

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

Sections reads thus:- “26. Purpose for which the market development fund may be expended.The marketing development fund shall be utilised out of following purposes: (i) better marketing of agricultural produce ; (ii) marketing of agricultural produce on co-operative lines ; (iii) collection and dissemination of market rates and news ; (iv) grading and standardisation of agricultural produce; (v) general improvements

The Commissioner of Income Tax vs. Independent Assemblies of God

Bench: RAMESH RANGANATHAN,M.SATYANARAYANA MURTHY

201 ITA-290-2005 (O&M) Date of Decision: 05.12.2025 M/S MAJESTIC AUTO LTD. ...Appellant Vs. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX & ANR …Respondents CORAM:- HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE JAGMOHAN BANSAL HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AMARINDER SINGH GREWAL Present:- Mr. Viren Sharma, Advocate with Mr. Yash Srivastava, Advocate for the appellant Mr. Vaibhav Gupta, Advocate for respondent-Income Tax *** JAGMOHAN BANSAL

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

201 ITR 338 (supra). We also find that this judgement has been impliedly overruled by the Apex Court in the case of Kerala State Co-operative Marketing Federation Ltd. & Others 231 ITR 814 (supra), wherein at Page No. 825 it was held as under:- “We hold that the society engaged in the marketing of agricultural produce of its members would

Commissioner of Income Tax vs. Sri. B. Venkatesam,

The appeal stands disposed of with no order as to

disallowance of `1,64,87,375 - disputed additional customs duty claimed by the assessee as a part of the landed cost of goods. 8. The facts, relevant to the question of deduction on account of additional customs duty, briefly stated are as follows: The appellant is, interalia, engaged in manufacturing and trading of products like de-oiled meals, industrial hard

The Commissioner of Income Tax- I vs. M/s. Avon Organics Limited

Bench: GODA RAGHURAM,M.S.RAMACHANDRA RAO

disallowed as revenue expenditure but capitalised, is as under:- “S.No. Expenses Head Amount 01. Salary & Wages 2283936 02 Employer Contribution to PF 46658 03 Employer Contribution to ESI 46919 04 Admin Charges PF/EDLI 4316 05 ESLI Charges 1943 06 Medical Expenses 151 07 Books & Periodicals 986 08 House Keeping Expenses 42493 09 Generator Running Maintt. 25121 ITA 257/2012 Page