Judgements by CA.Saibaburao Nanduri

Held by the Hon'ble court that the firm dissolved and reconstituted was merely a change in constitution of the firm u/s 187 and not a case of succession u/s188. Hence,only one assessment had to be made.

Held by Hon"ble court that provisions of section 142(2A) do not require the assessing officer to issue show cause notice or grant any hearing to the assessee before passing an order u/s 142(A).

Held by Hon"ble court that the money collected by assesse from each customer against bottles sold could not be treated as income of the assessee, as the assessee was under an obligation to return the money subject to fulfillment of certain conditions

Held by hon"ble court that tin shed could not be considered as a residential house as it did not have any boundary wall, kitchen etc.Also it didn"t have any electricity or water connectioin. As such assessee was not entitled to exemption on sale of t

Held by hon"ble court that Sec.179 clearly requires that before initiating recovery actions against directors, it is necessary to establish that such recovery could not be made against the company.

Held by hon"ble court that voluntary contribution means payment made without any compulsion. Whereas in this case, member is under an obligation to pay the fee. Hence, it could not be treated as voluntary contribution u/s 12.

Held by hon"ble court if company had made payment to the firm as a repayment for advances, made earlier, in ordinary course of business and such transactions were properly recorded in the books of all concerned parties, such payments could not be hel

Held by hon"ble court that u/s 205 no demand can be raised against the assessee to the extent such tax has been deducted from rent income in accordance with section 194-I, hence assesse is not liable to pay tax deducted but not deposited by the tenan

Held by hon"ble court that as the expenditure was incurred on purely commercial basis and as no deficiency was found in books of accounts the assessee was entitled to claim deduction for expenses incurred u/s 37(1).

Held by hon"ble court that the company had incurred expenditure for the benefit of employees" and it could be said that such expenses were incurred wholly and exclusively for the purpose of business.Thus assessee was entitled to claim deduction u/s 3