M/s Kausalya Agro Farms and Developers pvt. ltd vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax

The appeals are allowed

Bench: N.TUKARAMJI,UJJAL BHUYAN

271, 272, 273, 274, 275, 279, 281, 283, 284 and 294 of 2022 COMMON JUDGMENT: (Per the Hon’ble the Chief Justice Ujjal Bhuyan) This order will dispose of the above batch of income tax appeals. 2. Heard Mr. Dwarakanath, learned Senior Counsel representing Mr. Karthik Ramana Puttam Reddy, learned counsel for the assessees/appellants and Ms. K.Mamata Choudary, learned Standing

M/s. Dakshin Infrastructures Private Limited vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax

The appeals are allowed

Bench: N.TUKARAMJI,UJJAL BHUYAN

271, 272, 273, 274, 275, 279, 281, 283, 284 and 294 of 2022 COMMON JUDGMENT: (Per the Hon’ble the Chief Justice Ujjal Bhuyan) This order will dispose of the above batch of income tax appeals. 2. Heard Mr. Dwarakanath, learned Senior Counsel representing Mr. Karthik Ramana Puttam Reddy, learned counsel for the assessees/appellants and Ms. K.Mamata Choudary, learned Standing

The Pr. Commissioner of Income-tax-4 vs. Sri. Krishna Chigullapally

Bench: N.TUKARAMJI,UJJAL BHUYAN

271 TO 274 AND 302/2016 ON THE FILE OF THE KARNATAKA APPELLATE TRIBUNAL BENGALURU, ALLOWING THE APPEALS FILED AGAINST IMPUGNED ORDER DATED 30.04.2015 PASSED IN VAT AP NOS. 61/15-16, VAT AP NO.142/15-16, VAT AP NO. 136/15- 16, VAT AP NO.137/15-16, VAT AP NO.138/15-16 ON THE FILE OF THE JOINT COMMISSIONER OF COMMERCIAL TAXES, (APPEALS-1) BENGALURU, DISMISSING THE APPEALS

The Commissioner of Income Tax -III vs. Sri T.C. Reddy

The appeal stands dismissed

271(1)(c) r.w 274 of the Income-tax Act for concealment and furnishing of inaccurate particulars are initiated separately. (iv) The assessee has booked various expenses of contractual nature, vide order sheet entry dated 29.12.2009, the assessee was asked to show cause why the same should not disallowed u/s40a(ia). In response thereto the assessee has only filed copy

The Commissioner of Income Tax-II vs. M/s.Gowra Leasing AND Finance Ltd

Appeal is allowed

Bench: RAMESH RANGANATHAN,M.SATYANARAYANA MURTHY

reassessment proceedings are pending, the (2 of 4) [ITA-271/2008] entire assessment is open and not confined to scope of reasons recorded by the Assessing Officer?” 3. However, the issue is squarely covered by the decision of this Court in the case of S. Kasliwal & Co. vs. The Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax in DB Income Tax Appeal No.53/2004

PR COMMR OF INCOME TAX-2, HYDERABAD vs. K RAVINDER REDDY, HYDERABAD

Bench: RAMESH RANGANATHAN,KONGARA VIJAYA LAKSHMI

reassessment proceedings. The assessees resisted the move to assess them, contending that they were not subjected to income tax laws of India as they had no permanent establishment. The AO by order dated 31.12.2008 held that the appellant has a fixed place PE and DAPE in India. Further, the AO also deemed 10% of the value of supplies made