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

Bench: RAMESH RANGANATHAN,KONGARA VIJAYA LAKSHMI

69,349/- being excess provision claimed under Section 36(vii-a) 5 of the Act. The Assessing Officer disallowed the depreciation

Commissioner of Income Tax-2, vs. Agricultural Market Committee,

The appeal of the assessee is allowed

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

69,103/- 10. The AO has nowhere in his order established that the appellant company had raised interest bearing loan and diverted them to partners/parties without charging interest. 11. I further find that Rs.3,11,22,866/- was financed by the company from self sources without any cost i.e. Rs.90,50,000/- were raised through unsecured loans during the year

THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX-IV, HYDERABAD vs. M/S NAVA BHARAT VENTURES LTD., HYD

The appeal is dismissed

Bench: P.SAM KOSHY,NARSING RAO NANDIKONDA

disallowed the entire claim of deduction under Section 80-lA of the Act, 19,61. Aggrieved by the order of the Ar;sessing Ofhcer, the assessee preferred an appeal before the C ommissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) V, Hyderabad. The CII(A) uide order 'tl 3 , PSA & NNRJ Itto 25L 2014 dated 24.O8.20O9 in ITA No. 0 1 69

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

The appeal is disposed of

disallow the deduction as claimed by the assessee under Section 80IB(10) of the Act and to carry out the assessment 5 afresh in accordance with law after affording an opportunity of hearing to the assessee. 3. Being aggrieved, the assessee filed an appeal before the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Tribunal’, for short). The Tribunal

The Pr. Commissioner of Income-Tax-1 vs. M/s. New River Software System Pvt Ltd.,

The appeals are dismissed

Bench: RAMESH RANGANATHAN,M.SATYANARAYANA MURTHY

disallowance of interest of `75,47,897/- on unsecured loans was added under Section 68 of the Act and an amount of `1,51,200/- which was expended on the foreign guests was added. 3. Apropos the appeals filed in 2015, a similar reassessment order was passed pursuant to the search proceedings under Section 132, whereby inter alia additions

The Commissioner of Income Tax-I vs. Adaptec [India] Ltd

The appeals are dismissed

disallowance of interest of `75,47,897/- on unsecured loans was added under Section 68 of the Act and an amount of `1,51,200/- which was expended on the foreign guests was added. 3. Apropos the appeals filed in 2015, a similar reassessment order was passed pursuant to the search proceedings under Section 132, whereby inter alia additions

M/S.VISWARUPA BUILDERS AND DEVELOPERS(P)LTD vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER,WARD-3

The appeal is dismissed

Bench: This Court As Arising From The Impugned Order Of The Itat Read As Under:

69 of the IT Act, it was on account of the cash seizure which was treated as undisclosed income. Out of the total addition made by the AO, the CIT (A) confirmed the addition to the extent of Rs.10,48,231/- claimed to be belonging to Ram Ratan Banka (HUF) and Smt. Bhagabati Devi Banka. The balance amount was claimed

PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-I vs. A.V. V. VARAPRASAD

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

69,760/-, showing the same as income from salary. He has shown income from other sources as Nil and claimed exemption from capital gains under Sections 54EC and 54F of the Income Tax Act, 1961,(for short ‘the Act’). The case was selected for scrutiny under CASS. A notice under Section 143 (2), was accordingly issued. Upon considering the details

The Commissioner of Income Tax (Central) vs. K. V. Srinivasa Rao

disallowed. These were put during the cross-examination of Bankey, PW 30. They are: Q. Did you state to the investigating officer that the gang rolled the dead bodies of Nathi, Saktu and Bharat Singh and scrutinized them, and did you tell him that the face of Asa Ram resembled that of the deceased Bharat Singh? Q. Did you state

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

69,336/-. This was claimed as deduction being interest from the business of banking. Out of this, an amount of Rs.6,95,66,643/- was 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

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

69,336/-. This was claimed as deduction being interest from the business of banking. Out of this, an amount of Rs.6,95,66,643/- was 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

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

69,336/-. This was claimed as deduction being interest from the business of banking. Out of this, an amount of Rs.6,95,66,643/- was 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

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

69,336/-. This was claimed as deduction being interest from the business of banking. Out of this, an amount of Rs.6,95,66,643/- was 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

The Commissioner of Income Tax IV vs. Margadarshi Chit Fund Pvt. Ltd.,

The appeal is dismissed

disallowing expenditure, on surmises and conjenctures without finding any discrepancy in Audited books of account?” While allowed the appeals, it has been observed that all the three authorities had acted on surmises and guess work while sustaining the additions of different amounts. Further the authorities were required to have some material to come to the conclusion that the addition

Commissioner of Income Tax -II vs. M/S Sri Ramanjaneya Poultry Farm Pvt., Ltd.,

Bench: CHALLA KODANDA RAM,G.CHANDRAIAH

69,023.00. Issue necessary forms. Sd/- (Sanjay Gosain) Income Tax Officer, Ward 23(2), N. Delhi Copy to : The Assessee. O/c Sd/- (Sanjay Gosain) Income Tax Officer, Ward 23(2), N. Delhi.” CS(OS) No.713/2006 Page 12 of 14 8. It is not disputed before me on behalf of the plaintiff that when this Order was passed

THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX III, vs. M/S. SAVIJANA SEA FOODS PVT. LTD.,

Appeals of the Revenue are dismissed

Bench: J SREENIVAS RAO,ALOK ARADHE

disallowable on the ground of such payment having been made for „extraneous considerations.‟ 34. In Kanga and Palkhivala‟s Commentary on the Income Tax Law Volume 1, the distinction between the expressions “for the purpose of earning profits‟ and „for purpose of the business‟ was brought out as under: “11. Wholly and Exclusively for the Purposes of the Business

Commissioner of Income Tax, vs. M/s. Kokivenkateswara Reddy AND others,

Appeals of the Revenue are dismissed

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

disallowable on the ground of such payment having been made for „extraneous considerations.‟ 34. In Kanga and Palkhivala‟s Commentary on the Income Tax Law Volume 1, the distinction between the expressions “for the purpose of earning profits‟ and „for purpose of the business‟ was brought out as under: “11. Wholly and Exclusively for the Purposes of the Business

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