COMR. OF IT HYD vs. M/S NEERAJ PETRO CHEMICALS LTD HYD

The appeal is partly allowed

disallowance of Rs.9,88,740/- on account of accrued interest liability? (B) Whether when there is a specific provision with regard to expenses incurred for guest house u/s.37(4) the Tribunal was justified in ignoring the same depsite clear provision of section

Commissioner of Income Tax vs. Agricultral Market Committee,

Appeal is dismissed

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

88,779/- (Rupees Two Lac Eighty Eight Thousand Seven Hundred and Seventy Nine Only) availed by the assessee was disallowed under PRERNA JOSHI 2025.01.29 13:41 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CEA-60-2011 (O&M) 3 Rule 14 of the CENVAT Credit Rules, 2004 read with Section

Principal Commissioner of Income Tax-1 vs. M/s Sri Sri Gruha Nirman India Pvt. Ltd.

Appeals are dismissed

Bench: P.SAM KOSHY,NARSING RAO NANDIKONDA

disallowance under Section 40(a)(ia) of the Act could not be sustained. 6. We may note that this view has been accepted by the Supreme Court in Commissioner of Income-tax v. Ahmedabad Stamp Vendors Association, [2012] 25 taxmann.com 201(SC). 7. Therefore, insofar as proposed question no. (ii) is concerned, in our view, that question does not arise

The Commissoner of Income Tax I , vs. M/s. Alpha Thought Technologies P Ltd.,

In the result, the orders passed by the

Bench: RAMESH RANGANATHAN,M.SATYANARAYANA MURTHY

disallowed by the Act. In SETH M DALMIA supra, the Supreme Court referred to with approval the decision of the Bombay High Court in ‘COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX VS. H.H.MAHARANI VIJAYKUVERBA SAHEB OF MORVI’, (1975) 100 ITR 67, wherein the Bombay High Court while dealing with Section 12(2) of the Act, held that deduction permissible under the aforesaid provision

The Commissioner of Income Tax -II vs. M/S Heritage Foods India Limited,

88,825/- was allowed under the provisions of section 35D of the Act and the balance amount of Rs.70,99,425/- was disallowed

COMMR.OF I.T. A.P.I HYD vs. DIAMOND HATCHERIES (P) LTD

Appeal is allowed

disallowed the deduction of Rs.10,19,200/- under Section 80M of the Act claimed by the assessee and also estimated the Closing Stock as Rs.20,00,000/- after giving a benefit of Closing Stock of Rs.1,11,741/- in the assessment year 1983-84, made an addition of Rs.18,88

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, vs. M/s Polisetty Somasundaram,

Section 143 (2) of the Act as well as the assessment framed by the Assessing Officer. On the other hand, the AJAY PRASHER 2023.04.10 11:34 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document ITA No.140 of 2013 (O&M) -4- appeal filed by the revenue-department was dismissed. Hence, the present appeal. Vide order dated 25.03.2014 passed

The Commissioner of income Tax-II vs. M/s.Ideal Industrial Explosives Ltd

Bench: RAMESH RANGANATHAN,M.SATYANARAYANA MURTHY

88, 97, 100 and 104 of 2010 J U D G M E N T K.Vinod Chandran, J. The above appeals are all by the Department challenging various orders of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal. For the assessment year 1999- 2000, there are two appeals filed - ITA Nos.3/2010 and 23/2010 - arising from orders under Sections

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

Director of Income Tax (International Taxation) vs. Dr. K. Kalpana Reddy

Bench: M.GANGA RAO,RAMESH RANGANATHAN

disallow the claim of deduction? 2. Facts giving rise to filing of this appeal briefly stated are that the assessee is a banking company. The assessee filed return of income for Assessment Year 2007-08 on 29.10.2007 declaring total income of Rs.593,48,70,178/-. The return was processed under Section

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

Section 194-I of the Act, the liability to deduct TDS is on the tenant paying the rent. The amount passed on to the owners by the Assessee was not its capacity as tenant. It is further pointed out that for AY 1998-99 the Revenue accepted the order of the CIT (A) by not filing any further appeal. This

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

Appeals of the Revenue are dismissed

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

Section 194-I of the Act, the liability to deduct TDS is on the tenant paying the rent. The amount passed on to the owners by the Assessee was not its capacity as tenant. It is further pointed out that for AY 1998-99 the Revenue accepted the order of the CIT (A) by not filing any further appeal. This

The Commissioner of Income Tax vs. M/s.B.Satyanarayana AND Others

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

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

88, 106, 108, 118, 119, 126, 128, 129, 131, 137, 141, 143, 147, 151, 167, 169, 170, 171, 172, 176, 179, 183, 185, 187, 188, 193, 194, 197, 206, 208, 210, 227, 240, 253, 259, 272, 278, 294, 302, 304, 305, 309, 314, 333 of 2003; INCOME TAX TRIBUNAL APPEAL Nos.74, 126 of 2004; and INCOME TAX TRIBUNAL APPEAL No.393

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

88, 106, 108, 118, 119, 126, 128, 129, 131, 137, 141, 143, 147, 151, 167, 169, 170, 171, 172, 176, 179, 183, 185, 187, 188, 193, 194, 197, 206, 208, 210, 227, 240, 253, 259, 272, 278, 294, 302, 304, 305, 309, 314, 333 of 2003; INCOME TAX TRIBUNAL APPEAL Nos.74, 126 of 2004; and INCOME TAX TRIBUNAL APPEAL No.393