Judgements by CA.Saibaburao Nanduri

Held by the Hon`ble Court that, the assessee who is admittedly assessed to wealth-tax cannot be said to have no source of income. Therefore explanation given by assessee is not satisfactory and addition is justified in law.

Held by the Hon`ble Court that, the findings recorded by the Tribunal shows that the amount seized from the assessee, could not be faulted and block assessment was valid. Therefore proceedings initiated u/s 158BC was justified in law.

Held by hon"ble court that under mercantile system of accounting assessee is entitled to deduction of loss/ expenditure in the year in which such entry is made in books of account. Hence, A.O. is not justified in disallowing deduction for amount paya

Held by the Hon`ble Court that, the reference can be made to the valuation officer for the purpose of sections 55(A), 131, 133(6), 142(2) and not for the purpose of finding out the cost. Therefore no addition is allowed on account of valuation report

Held by the Hon`ble Court that, the two different method of valuation of closing stock are not permissible under law. If permitted it would lead to anomalous results.

Held by the Hon`ble Court that, it is an admitted fact that receipt against the work done prior to the formation received after the formation. Till received these expenses could not be claimed, therefore had to be carried forward and allowed in relev

Held by the Hon`ble Court that, there are a number of tests which are required to decide whether the expenditure is revenue or capital in nature. A number of judgments cited before the court. However in the absence of requisite details regarding prod

Held by the Hon`ble court that there was no capital gains assessable in respect of the transfer on the ground that there was no cost of acqusition and capital gain could not be computed ignoring the fact that the said property was obtained in conside

Held by the Hon`ble Bench that as turnover charges levied by the SEBI are not one time license fees, it is to be paid every year on the basis of percentage of turnover, thus it is in the nature of expenditure covered by the provision of section 43B o

Held by Ho"ble court that since the incentive bonus was paid to the employees wholly and exclusively for business purposes such bonus was allowable as deduction u/s 37(1).