THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-III vs. M/S. SOMA ENTERPRISES LTD

The appeal is disposed off accordingly

Bench: The Hon'Ble Mr. Justice Ravi Malimath

disallowing the expenses on which tax has not been deducted at source. 11. The same is disputed by the learned counsel for the respondent. 12. Section 40(a)(ia) of the Income Tax Act reads as follows: “Section 40 – Notwithstanding anything to the contrary in sections 30 to 38, the following amounts shall not be deducted in 10 computing

Andhra PRadesh Pradesh Fibres Limited vs. Assistant commissioner of Income Tax

In the result, the order passed by the

Bench: V.V.S.RAO,SANJAY KUMAR

Section 80I of the Act to the extent of Rs.1,17,18,570/- was disallowed. Similarly, the provision for leave encashment as well as claim for bonus to the tune of Rs.4,36,546/- as well as Rs.19,75,555/- respectively was disallowed. 3

The Commissioner of Income Tax-I vs. M/s Andhra Bank

In the result, the appeal is dismissed

Bench: CHALLA KODANDA RAM,C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY

Section 14A read with Rule 8D of the Rules. The interest on the diverted borrowed capital was also disallowed. Thus, in all, disallowance of Rs.43,85,79,362/- was made. 5 3

Commissioner of Income Tax, vs. Dr. T.Ravi Kumar,

Bench: : The Hon’Ble Justice Surya Prakash Kesarwani & The Hon’Ble Justice Rajarshi Bharadwaj Date : 10Th April, 2024. Appearance: Mr. J. P. Khaitan, Senior Advocate Mr. Sanjay Bhowmick, Advocate Ms. Swapna Das, Advocate … For The Appellant. Ms. Smita Das De, Advocate … For The Respondent. 1. Heard Sri J. P. Khaitan, Learned Senior Advocate Assisted By Sri Sanjay Bhowmick, Learned Counsel For The Appellant/Assessee & Ms. Smita Das De, Learned Senior Standing Counsel For The Respondent. 2. The Assessment Years Involved In The Present Appeal Are Assessment Year 1999-2000 & Assessment Year 2000-01. By Order Dated 16.08.2012, This Appeal Was Admitted On The Following Substantial Questions Of Law :-

Section 143(3) r.w.s. 147 of the Act, 1961 is an assessment order. The ratio of decision in the case of Sun Engineering Works (P) Limited (supra) has been erroneously applied by the assessing officer inasmuch as the order passed by the assessing officer is not a re-assessment order but an assessment order which is very much evident from

COMM OF INCOME TAX, HYD vs. M/S. BALAN NATURAL FOOD PRIVATE LTD., HYD

Bench: RAMESH RANGANATHAN,KONGARA VIJAYA LAKSHMI

disallowed the aforesaid amount in terms of Section 14A of the Act. A sum of Rs.3,43,28,658/- being 5% thereof was estimated as expenditure incurred for earning such income. 3

The Commissioner of Income Tax vs. M/s Kaveri Bar AND Restaurant,

Bench: ABHINAND KUMAR SHAVILI,V RAMASUBRAMANIAN

disallowing lesser amount under Section 36(i)(iii) of the Income Tax Act in the assessment order under Section 143(3

The Commissioner of Income Tax-III vs. Smt.Anitha Sanghi

Bench: RAMESH RANGANATHAN,M.SATYANARAYANA MURTHY

3) The provisions of sub-Section (2) shall also apply in relation to a case where an assesee claims that no expenditure has been incurred by him in relation to income which does not form part of the total income under this Act. Provided that nothing contained in this Section shall empower the Assessing Officer either to reassess under Section

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

3) of the Act. Objections were invited with regard to the nature of the concern – whether it is a firm or AoP; justification for the expenditure claimed; and profit/loss shown in the return. The assessees filed their explanation. They contended that, due to prohibition on the sale of arrack introduced from 30th September, 1993 by the Government, the whereabouts

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

3) of the Act. Objections were invited with regard to the nature of the concern – whether it is a firm or AoP; justification for the expenditure claimed; and profit/loss shown in the return. The assessees filed their explanation. They contended that, due to prohibition on the sale of arrack introduced from 30th September, 1993 by the Government, the whereabouts

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

3) of the Act. Objections were invited with regard to the nature of the concern – whether it is a firm or AoP; justification for the expenditure claimed; and profit/loss shown in the return. The assessees filed their explanation. They contended that, due to prohibition on the sale of arrack introduced from 30th September, 1993 by the Government, the whereabouts

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

3) of the Act. Objections were invited with regard to the nature of the concern – whether it is a firm or AoP; justification for the expenditure claimed; and profit/loss shown in the return. The assessees filed their explanation. They contended that, due to prohibition on the sale of arrack introduced from 30th September, 1993 by the Government, the whereabouts

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

3) of the Act. Objections were invited with regard to the nature of the concern – whether it is a firm or AoP; justification for the expenditure claimed; and profit/loss shown in the return. The assessees filed their explanation. They contended that, due to prohibition on the sale of arrack introduced from 30th September, 1993 by the Government, the whereabouts

The Commissioner of income tax, vs. M/s.Y.Ramulu and Others

In the result, for the above reasons, we set aside the orders

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

3) of the Act. Objections were invited with regard to the nature of the concern – whether it is a firm or AoP; justification for the expenditure claimed; and profit/loss shown in the return. The assessees filed their explanation. They contended that, due to prohibition on the sale of arrack introduced from 30th September, 1993 by the Government, the whereabouts

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

3) of the Act. Objections were invited with regard to the nature of the concern – whether it is a firm or AoP; justification for the expenditure claimed; and profit/loss shown in the return. The assessees filed their explanation. They contended that, due to prohibition on the sale of arrack introduced from 30th September, 1993 by the Government, the whereabouts

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

3) of the Act. Objections were invited with regard to the nature of the concern – whether it is a firm or AoP; justification for the expenditure claimed; and profit/loss shown in the return. The assessees filed their explanation. They contended that, due to prohibition on the sale of arrack introduced from 30th September, 1993 by the Government, the whereabouts

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

3) of the Act. Objections were invited with regard to the nature of the concern – whether it is a firm or AoP; justification for the expenditure claimed; and profit/loss shown in the return. The assessees filed their explanation. They contended that, due to prohibition on the sale of arrack introduced from 30th September, 1993 by the Government, the whereabouts

Commissioner of Income Tax vs. Ms. B.krishna Murthy AND Others

In the result, for the above reasons, we set aside the orders

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

3) of the Act. Objections were invited with regard to the nature of the concern – whether it is a firm or AoP; justification for the expenditure claimed; and profit/loss shown in the return. The assessees filed their explanation. They contended that, due to prohibition on the sale of arrack introduced from 30th September, 1993 by the Government, the whereabouts

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

3) of the Act. Objections were invited with regard to the nature of the concern – whether it is a firm or AoP; justification for the expenditure claimed; and profit/loss shown in the return. The assessees filed their explanation. They contended that, due to prohibition on the sale of arrack introduced from 30th September, 1993 by the Government, the whereabouts