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

INCOME TAX BANGALORE vs. SHALINI BHUPAL

Appeal is dismissed

c) no deduction on account of depreciation in respect of such machi-nery or plant has been allowed or is allowable under the provisions of this Act in computing the total income of any person for any period prior to the date of the installation of the machinery or plant by the assessee. Explanation 2.—Where in the case

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

Bench: RAMESH RANGANATHAN,KONGARA VIJAYA LAKSHMI

price, and requesting them to place an order with the foreign headquarters were not auxiliary or preparatory in nature. The observations and findings of the High Court are eerily similar to the facts of this case: “Relying on these provisions, it is contended by the assessee that the liaison office was opened to act as a communication channel between

M/s. Canara Securities Ltd vs. Dy. Commissioner of Income Tax

Bench: M.S.RAMACHANDRA RAO,T.AMARNATH GOUD

c) in the impugned order enforcing the APLs' decision by majority and recognizing the power of the Joint (APO NOS. 89, 90, 91, 92, 94, 95, 96 AND 98 OF 2020) REPORTABLE Page 83 of 300 APLs to act by majority is contrary to law and to the order of appointment of the APLs. 23. It is submitted that

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

271. The Assessee also decided to pay in addition compensation amounting to Rs.1,18,38,705 in lieu of surrender of their rights in the flat. This expenditure was claimed by the Assessee as „revenue in nature‟ and was charged to the Profit and Loss Account („P&L Account‟). Proceedings before the AO 4. The Assessing Officer („AO‟) who picked

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

Appeals of the Revenue are dismissed

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

271. The Assessee also decided to pay in addition compensation amounting to Rs.1,18,38,705 in lieu of surrender of their rights in the flat. This expenditure was claimed by the Assessee as „revenue in nature‟ and was charged to the Profit and Loss Account („P&L Account‟). Proceedings before the AO 4. The Assessing Officer („AO‟) who picked