Commissioner of Income Tax vs. Agricultural Market Committee

In the result, both the substantial questions

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

Section 36(1)(vii) for allowing as bad debts. Assessee has not made any fresh submission on addition of Rs.32,25,000/-, In view of the above facts and circumstances, I am of the opinion that the assessing officer has rightly disallowed

The Commissioner of Income Tax -1 vs. R.S. Sudheesh

disallowed the claim. As regards advances given for acquisition of Revenue items amounting to Rs.2,32,93,575/- the Assessing Officer held that the claim is not allowable under Section 36(1)(vii

The Commissioner of Income tax III, vs. Biraj Kavar Galada

The appeals are disposed of

Bench: RAMESH RANGANATHAN,M.SATYANARAYANA MURTHY

1)(vii) read with Section 36(2)(i) of the Act which contemplated treating the said amount as income of the 4 assessee especially when the same had not been written off as bad debts and the RBI guidelines could not prevail over the statutory provisions of the Act? 2. ITA No.100/2010 has also been filed by the revenue, which

PRL COMM OF INCOME TAX-2, HYDERABAD vs. M/S NUZIVIDU SWATHI COASTAL CONSORTIUM, HYDERABAD

In the result, the appeal is disposed of

Bench: M.GANGA RAO,RAMESH RANGANATHAN

Section 36(1)(vii) of the Act was disallowed. The tribunal further held that the issue pertaining to Section 115JAA

Commissioner of Income tAx, vs. Sri Padala Ramakrishna Reddy,

The appeals stand dismissed

Bench: RAMESH RANGANATHAN,M.SATYANARAYANA MURTHY

36(1) (va) of the Act.” 2.3. This Court while admitting Appeal No.17/2012 on 15.05.2012 has framed the following substantial question of law: (i) “Whether in the facts and Circumstances of the case, the ITAT was justified in holding that the assessee was eligible for exemption u/s 10BA of the IT Act despite of the fact that the assessee

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

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

vii) Whether the procedure adopted for ascertaining of liability as leave encashment by adhering to Accounting Standard-15 issued by ICAI was proper & correct and the expense so claimed is an allowable deduction under the Income Tax Act. 1961? (viii) Whether the expenses towards contribution to have encashment trust for the discharge of the Statutory liability is an allowable expense

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

Bench: RAMESH RANGANATHAN,M.SATYANARAYANA MURTHY

vii) Whether the procedure adopted for ascertaining of liability as leave encashment by adhering to Accounting Standard-15 issued by ICAI was proper & correct and the expense so claimed is an allowable deduction under the Income Tax Act. 1961? (viii) Whether the expenses towards contribution to have encashment trust for the discharge of the Statutory liability is an allowable expense

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

Bench: RAMESH RANGANATHAN,M.SATYANARAYANA MURTHY

vii) Whether the procedure adopted for ascertaining of liability as leave encashment by adhering to Accounting Standard-15 issued by ICAI was proper & correct and the expense so claimed is an allowable deduction under the Income Tax Act. 1961? (viii) Whether the expenses towards contribution to have encashment trust for the discharge of the Statutory liability is an allowable expense

Commissioner of Income Tax-I vs. Agricultural Market Committee

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

vii) Whether the procedure adopted for ascertaining of liability as leave encashment by adhering to Accounting Standard-15 issued by ICAI was proper & correct and the expense so claimed is an allowable deduction under the Income Tax Act. 1961? (viii) Whether the expenses towards contribution to have encashment trust for the discharge of the Statutory liability is an allowable expense

The Commissioner of Income- Tax - V, vs. M/s. Krishnaveni Constructions,

Bench: RAMESH RANGANATHAN,M.SATYANARAYANA MURTHY

Section 36(1)(vii) with effect from 01.04.1989, the assesee (s) is now required not only to debit the profit and loss account but simultaneously also reduce loans and advances or the debtors from the asset side of the balance sheet to the extent of the corresponding amount so that, at the end of the year, the amount of loans

Principal Commissioner of Income Tax-2 vs. M/s Indur Green Power Private Limited

In the result, all the appeals fail and are hereby

Bench: RAMESH RANGANATHAN,M.SATYANARAYANA MURTHY

36. To amalgamate, enter into partnership or into any arrangement, union of interest, cooperation, reciprocal concession or otherwise with any person, firm or company carrying on or engaged in or about to carry on any activities which may seem capable of being carried on or conducted so as, directly or indirectly to benefit the Company. 37. To search

The Commissioner of Income Tax IV vs. M/s Matrix Power Pvt Ltd.,

disallowed, as the income of this unit was exempt from tax. In response, the Assessee furnished its detailed submissions, which, however, were rejected by the AO who was of the opinion that as Section 10B was in Chapter-III of the Act, under the heading ―incomes which do not form part of total income‖, legislative intent was clear that such

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

Bench: J. UMA DEVI,V RAMASUBRAMANIAN

disallowance; the fact that for the Assessment Year 2008 – 09 some addition was made under the said head, cannot be the sole basis for making such an addition for the subsequent Assessment Year, each assessment being an independent compact. He also pleaded about CBI raid & seizure of all documents, not even a piece of paper being in his custody

Commissioner of Income Tax-III vs. Sigma Constructions

In the result, the appeal is dismissed

Section 36(1)(vii) of the Act and the expenditure relating to prior period could not be claimed in the guise of bad debts. In support of aforesaid submission, reliance has been placed on the decision of the Supreme Court in 'GOETZE INDIA LTD. Vs. CIT' 284 ITR 323. 5. On the other hand, learned counsel for the assessee

Commissioner of Income Tax vs. Agricultural Market Committee

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

disallowed by the Assessing Officer and after verifying the relevant records. Thus, a finding was recorded that the assessee Shivani Gupta 2024.01.19 12:57 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document ITA No.244 of 2011 and ITA No.512 of 2017 4 2024:PHHC:004741-DB had not furnished any inaccurate particulars and the Assessing Officer as well

The Commissioner of Income Tax vs. M.Venkata Krishna Mohan

Bench: RAMESH RANGANATHAN,M.SATYANARAYANA MURTHY

Section 143(3) of the Act and the income of the appellant was determined at Rs.84,95,035/-. The assessing Officer (hereinafter „AO‟) came to the conclusion that since the payment of Rs.1 Crore was absent in the earlier license agreement and it was for use of the brand, the expenditure of Rs.1 Crore cannot be related to the business

Commissioner of Income Tax-II vs. M/s.Kalyani Wines

In the result, I find this appeal bereft of merit and accordingly,

Bench: Hon’Ble Mr. Justice Robin Phukan

1], the view taken above has been reiterated in the following words: ‚25. Moreover, umpteen numbers of judgments of this Court have categorically held that the courts should not interfere with an Page 30 of 60 award merely because an alternative view on facts and interpretation of contract exists. The courts need to be cautious and should defer