Sri Rajesh Rawtani vs. The Income Tax Officer

The appeals are disposed off in the above

Bench: P.SAM KOSHY,SUDDALA CHALAPATHI RAO

section 37(1). The AO and the CIT had disallowed the claim originally made under section 80G. The reasoning of these

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) read with Section 36(2) as the said amount was not offered for taxation. The Assessing Officer rejected the alternative claim for deduction under Section 37

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

Section 36 (1) (iii). The ITAT also held that: “In fact the said were amounts were advanced during the FY 2005-06 and 2006-07. Orders were passed by the AO u/s 143(3) for both these years in which the scrutiny assessments have taken place, and no disallowance was made either u/s 36(1)(iii) or u/s 37

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

Bench: J. UMA DEVI,V RAMASUBRAMANIAN

1) section 37, which has the following text: “Any expenditure (not being expenditure of the nature described in section 30 to 36 and not being in the nature of capital expenditure or personal expenses of the assessee) laid out or expended wholly and exclusively for the purpose of the business or profession shall be allowed in computing the income chargeable

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 37(1) of the Act has 11 also not been examined. The issue with regard to the claim of the assessee under Section14A of the Act has not been adjudicated. 7. We therefore, quash the order passed by the tribunal insofar as it pertains to disallowance

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

Bench: RAMESH RANGANATHAN,M.SATYANARAYANA MURTHY

section 37[1] of the Act. The very same arguments are now advanced by the learned counsel appearing for the assessee in the present appeal proceedings. The CIT[A] upheld the disallowance

The Commissioner of Income Tax-IV vs. M/s Planet Online Pvt Ltd

Bench: Us Challenging Order Dated 17.04.2013, Passed By The Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Chandigarh Bench 'B'. Chandigarh (Hereinafter Referred To As 'The

37,67,894/- made under Section 14A read with Rule 8D, on account of interest on loans, on investments earning tax free income in the form of dividend. ii) Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law the Hon'ble Income Tax Appellate Tribunal was justified in relying on the decision of jurisdictional High

The Director of Income Tax, (Exemptions) vs. Royal Education Society

In the result, the appeal is disposed of

Bench: ANIS,SANJAY KUMAR

disallowance of contribution 6 under various heads and held that such contributions are allowable expenses. However, the tribunal did not grant relief with regard to the additional claim of loss made by the assessee on account of sale of securities on the ground that the aforesaid additional claim was not made in original assessment proceeding. Thus, the appeal was partly

M/S. A.V.R. AND COMPANY, vs. THE DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CENTRAL CIRCLE,

The appeals are dismissed

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

Section 37 (1) of the Act by 1998 Act with effect from 01-04-1962. 4. As the assessment years, for which expenditure was incurred by the appellant and disallowed

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

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

disallowed by Tribunal relying upon Section 37(4) of 1961 Act. Section 37(4) reads as:- “(4) Notwithstanding anything contained in sub-section (1

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

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

Section 37(1) of the Income Tax Act, 1961? ix) Whether the Learned Tribunal was justified going beyond the pleadings in issuing the directions for enhancing the income by adding to the income the amount to the extent of which the said deduction has been set off against the liability when such a ground was neither agitated by either party

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

Bench: RAMESH RANGANATHAN,M.SATYANARAYANA MURTHY

Section 37(1) of the Income Tax Act, 1961? ix) Whether the Learned Tribunal was justified going beyond the pleadings in issuing the directions for enhancing the income by adding to the income the amount to the extent of which the said deduction has been set off against the liability when such a ground was neither agitated by either party

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

Bench: RAMESH RANGANATHAN,M.SATYANARAYANA MURTHY

Section 37(1) of the Income Tax Act, 1961? ix) Whether the Learned Tribunal was justified going beyond the pleadings in issuing the directions for enhancing the income by adding to the income the amount to the extent of which the said deduction has been set off against the liability when such a ground was neither agitated by either party

Commissioner of Income Tax-I vs. Agricultural Market Committee

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

Section 37(1) of the Income Tax Act, 1961? ix) Whether the Learned Tribunal was justified going beyond the pleadings in issuing the directions for enhancing the income by adding to the income the amount to the extent of which the said deduction has been set off against the liability when such a ground was neither agitated by either party

COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-II, HYDERABAD vs. M/s. The A.P.Vardhaman(Mahila)Cooperative Urban

In the result, for the above reasons, these appeals fail and

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

disallowed by the assessing officer on the ground that the assessee did not obtain prior approval in respect of investments against statutory reserves as required under Section 46 of the Andhra Pradesh Cooperative Societies Act, 1964 (the Societies Act) and Rule 37(2) of the Andhra Pradesh Cooperative Societies Rules, 1964 (the Societies Rules). The assessing officer came

Commissioner of Income Tax-II, vs. M/S The A.P.Mahesh Coop. Urban Bank Ltd,

In the result, for the above reasons, these appeals fail and

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

disallowed by the assessing officer on the ground that the assessee did not obtain prior approval in respect of investments against statutory reserves as required under Section 46 of the Andhra Pradesh Cooperative Societies Act, 1964 (the Societies Act) and Rule 37(2) of the Andhra Pradesh Cooperative Societies Rules, 1964 (the Societies Rules). The assessing officer came

The Commissioner of Income Tax-II vs. The Andhra Bank Employees Co.Operative Bank Limited

In the result, for the above reasons, these appeals fail and

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

disallowed by the assessing officer on the ground that the assessee did not obtain prior approval in respect of investments against statutory reserves as required under Section 46 of the Andhra Pradesh Cooperative Societies Act, 1964 (the Societies Act) and Rule 37(2) of the Andhra Pradesh Cooperative Societies Rules, 1964 (the Societies Rules). The assessing officer came

Commissioner of Income Tax -II vs. The Agrasen Coop. Urban Bank Ltd.,

In the result, for the above reasons, these appeals fail and

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

disallowed by the assessing officer on the ground that the assessee did not obtain prior approval in respect of investments against statutory reserves as required under Section 46 of the Andhra Pradesh Cooperative Societies Act, 1964 (the Societies Act) and Rule 37(2) of the Andhra Pradesh Cooperative Societies Rules, 1964 (the Societies Rules). The assessing officer came