Sri Rajesh Rawtani vs. The Income Tax Officer

The appeals are disposed off in the above

Bench: P.SAM KOSHY,SUDDALA CHALAPATHI RAO

245 ITR 428 allowed the assessee’s claim. The Tribunal noticed as follows: - “13. In the assessee’s case also, it is noticed that the provision for the wage revision is factored on the basis of past experience, interim pay commissions of govt. employees, available pay commission reports of public sector employees, union demands and other relevant factors required

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

245 days in re-filing the appeal No. ITA 157/2023 after curing the defects raised by the Registry of this court. The delay is explained largely on account of collation of relevant records. There being no serious objection, the application is allowed and accordingly the delay in re- filing the appeal is condoned. ITA 1021/2019 & ITA 157/2023 1. These

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

COMMISSIONER OF INCOMETA VIZ vs. M/S RAJAM EXTRACTIONS PVT

The appeal is partly allowed

Bench: GODA RAGHURAM,M.S.RAMACHANDRA RAO

disallowed sum of ₹1,60,33,064/- on the ground that this was not permissible under Section 43B of the Income Tax Act. 3. The matter was carried out before Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITA 42/2000 Page 3 (ITAT) which upheld the revenue’s contentions. It is under these circumstances that the assessee appealed to this Court. The first

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/-.

disallowed amounts by the CIT (Appeals) in these appeals are of Rs.48,56,224/-, Rs,44,18,245/- and Rs.13,16,123/-. 3. Since the questions raised and the assessee in all four appeals are common, for the sake of convenience we state the facts leading to I.T.T.A.No.252 of 2003 preferred by the Revenue, to the extent they

M/S. NATIONAL ACADEMY OF CONSTRUCTION, HYD vs. DY. DIRECTOR OF IT- I, HYD

Bench: P.SAM KOSHY,LAXMI NARAYANA ALISHETTY

disallowed deduction for Unit-I At the outset, the appellant wishes to submit that the CIT(A)-XVIII in assessment year 2007-08, vide order dated 15.10.2010 (refer pages 245 to 262 of the paperbook), while allowing in favor of the appellant, held, that Unit - I of the appellant, located at Khasra No.262Mi, Central Hope Town, Selakui Industrial Area, Tehsil

THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-I vs. M/S. A.P. BEVERAGES CORP. LTD.,

The appeal is disposed of

Bench: P.SAM KOSHY,NARSING RAO NANDIKONDA

disallowing actual warranty expenses of Rs.12,53,441/- and Rs.48,54,522/- on account of provision for warranty?” 2. Learned counsel for the parties have addressed arguments as a short issue is involved and is covered by an earlier decision of this Court in Commissioner of Income Tax versus Woodward Governor India Limited

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