Sri Rajesh Rawtani vs. The Income Tax Officer

The appeals are disposed off in the above

Bench: P.SAM KOSHY,SUDDALA CHALAPATHI RAO

disallowed the claim originally made under section 80G. The reasoning of these two lower authorities was that the claim was unsupported by any documentary proof with regard to the permissibility of the deduction and such being the case, relief of larger deduction as business expenditure could not be granted. 15. The Tribunal accepted the assessee’s argument and held that

The Commissioner of Income Tax-III, vs. M/S Sarada Projects Pvt. Ltd,

Appeals stand dismissed accordingly

2. The assessees filed their return of income for the respective assessment years in question. During the course of assessment proceedings the Assessing Officer made disallowances/addition with regard to interest amount and stamp charges. 2.1 Being aggrieved by the same, the assessee filed appeal before CIT(A). The CIT(A) partly allowed the appeals. The assessee as well as revenue

The Commissioner of Income Tax - Central vs. M/s. Himagiri Biotech Pvt. Ltd.,

2) Did the ITAT fall into error in holding that the sum of `25,04,385/- brought to tax by the AO on the interest free deposit of ` 1,75,50,000/- was not sustainable?; (3) Is the ITAT’s order- that the assessee’s revised net taxable income of ` 4,08,24,559/- held

THE PRL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX [CENTRAL] HYDERABAD vs. M/S SREE NAGENDRA CONSTRUCTIONS, KHAMMAM

In the result, appeal stands dismissed

Bench: This

2. Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal is right in setting aside the disallowance of exchange fluctuation loss of Rs.3,63,47,099/- made by the assessing authority even when the CBDT Instruction No.3/2010 dated 23.03.2010 refers to market losses are notional and contingent and actual losses are allowable as non-speculative only

Commissioner of Income Tax [TDS] vs. The Executive Engineer

In the result, these appeals fail and are

Bench: RAMESH RANGANATHAN,M.SEETHARAMA MURTI

section 115 JB of Act? 8. Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal erred in allowing the relief with regard to losses which were due to operational mistakes, related mainly to ATM transactions of customer and that loss is essential capital loss incurred for operational purposes? 9. Whether on the facts

Commissioner of Income Tax vs. Sri B. Nagendar,

In the result, Tax Appeal is dismissed with a

Bench: CHALLA KODANDA RAM,G.CHANDRAIAH

section 80I, directing to adjust the same in interest  expenses?” 2. Briefly stated, the facts are that the assessee is a private Trust  Page 2 of 9 O/TAXAP/316/2001 JUDGMENT carrying   on   business   of   manufacturing   washing   powder   in   the  name of “K.K. Patel Industries”. The assessee filed the return of  income on 29.06.1988 declaring total income of Rs.1

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

The appeal is partly allowed

Bench: GODA RAGHURAM,M.S.RAMACHANDRA RAO

Section 43B of the Income Tax Act. This Court is governed by the said precedent and accordingly answers question Nos. 1 and 2 in the affirmative and against the assessee. 5. The third question i.e. disallowance in respect of sum of ₹ 1,19,07,989/- being a loss incurred on account of devaluation of Rupee is governed by the ruling

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

The appeal stands disposed of with no order as to

section 260A(1) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as the „Act‟) challenging the order dated 16.09.1999 passed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Delhi (hereinafter referred to as the „Tribunal‟) in I.T.A. No.2722/De1/91 relating to assessment year 1987-88. The order dated 16.09.1999 is hereinafter referred to as the „impugned order‟. 2. The impugned order