ACIT, CIRCLE-5(1), HYDERABAD vs. EENADU TELEVISION PRIVATE LIMITED, HYDERABAD

section 32(1)(ii) of the Act preceding the term \"business or\ncommercial rights of similar nature\" it is seen that\nintangible assets are not of the same kind and are clearly\ndistinct from one another. The legislature thus did not\nintend to provide for depreciation only in respect of the\nspecified intangible assets but also to other categories

EENADU TELEVISION PRIVATE LIMITED,HYDERABAD vs. ACIT., CIRCLE-5(1), HYDERABAD

section 32(1)(ii) of the Act preceding the term \"business or\ncommercial rights of similar nature\" it is seen that\nintangible assets are not of the same kind and are clearly\ndistinct from one another. The legislature thus did not\nintend to provide for depreciation only in respect of the\nspecified intangible assets but also to other categories

DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX , CIRCLE-16(2), HYDERABAD vs. EENADU TELEVISION PRIVATE LIMITED , HYDERABAD

In the result, the appeal of Revenue is partly allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Rama Kanta Panda & Shri Laliet Kumar

section 32(1)(ii) of the Act and are eligible for depreciation @ 25%. 4.1. The ld.AR had also submitted that the above said judgments relied upon by the ld.DR are distinguishable and he relied upon the decision of Hon’ble Gujarat High Court. The ld.AR had filed the additional submissions which are to the following effect : “3. In this connection

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-5(1), HYDERABAD vs. EENADU TELEVISION PRIVATE LIMITED, HYDERABAD

section 32(1)(ii) of the Act preceding the term \"business or\ncommercial rights of similar nature\" it is seen that\nintangible assets are not of the same kind and are clearly\ndistinct from one another. The legislature thus did not\nintend to provide for depreciation only in respect of the\nspecified intangible assets but also to other categories

ACIT., CIRCLE-5(1), HYDERABAD vs. EENADU TELEVISION PRIVATE LIMITED, HYDERABAD

section 32(1)(ii) of the Act preceding the term \"business or\ncommercial rights of similar nature\" it is seen that\nintangible assets are not of the same kind and are clearly\ndistinct from one another. The legislature thus did not\nintend to provide for depreciation only in respect of the\nspecified intangible assets but also to other categories

DCIT, CIRCLE-1, KHAMMAM, KHAMMAM vs. THE SINGARENI COLLERIES COMPANY LT.D, KOTHAGUDEM, KOTHAGUDEM

In the result, both the appeals of the revenue for AYs 2009-10 & 2010-11 are dismissed

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahusl.

section 43(1) of Income Tax Act. This ground is treated as allowed for statistical purposes. 11. As regards the ground relating to restriction of depreciation on mine development to 10% as against 15% claimed, as raised in AY 2011-12 as ground Nos. 9 & 10, the assessee has claimed depreciation @ 15% to the extent

ASST. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE-1,, KHAMMAM vs. M/S SINGARENI COLLERIES COMPANY LTD.,, KHAMMAM DIST

In the result, both the appeals of the revenue for AYs 2009-10 & 2010-11 are dismissed

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahusl.

section 43(1) of Income Tax Act. This ground is treated as allowed for statistical purposes. 11. As regards the ground relating to restriction of depreciation on mine development to 10% as against 15% claimed, as raised in AY 2011-12 as ground Nos. 9 & 10, the assessee has claimed depreciation @ 15% to the extent

ASST. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE-1,, KHAMMAM vs. M/S SINGARENI COLLERIES COMPANY LTD.,, KHAMMAM DIST

In the result, both the appeals of the revenue for AYs 2009-10 & 2010-11 are dismissed

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahusl.

section 43(1) of Income Tax Act. This ground is treated as allowed for statistical purposes. 11. As regards the ground relating to restriction of depreciation on mine development to 10% as against 15% claimed, as raised in AY 2011-12 as ground Nos. 9 & 10, the assessee has claimed depreciation @ 15% to the extent

SINGARENI COLLERIES COMPANY LIMITED,HYDERABAD vs. ACIT, CIRCLE-1,, KHAMMAM

In the result, both the appeals of the revenue for AYs 2009-10 & 2010-11 are dismissed

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahusl.

section 43(1) of Income Tax Act. This ground is treated as allowed for statistical purposes. 11. As regards the ground relating to restriction of depreciation on mine development to 10% as against 15% claimed, as raised in AY 2011-12 as ground Nos. 9 & 10, the assessee has claimed depreciation @ 15% to the extent

SINGARENI COLLERIES COMPANY LIMITED,HYDERABAD vs. ACIT, CIRCLE-1,, KHAMMAM

In the result, both the appeals of the revenue for AYs 2009-10 & 2010-11 are dismissed

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahusl.

section 43(1) of Income Tax Act. This ground is treated as allowed for statistical purposes. 11. As regards the ground relating to restriction of depreciation on mine development to 10% as against 15% claimed, as raised in AY 2011-12 as ground Nos. 9 & 10, the assessee has claimed depreciation @ 15% to the extent

SINGARENI COLLERIES COMPANY LIMITED,HYDERABAD vs. ACIT, CIRCLE-1,, KHAMMAM

In the result, both the appeals of the revenue for AYs 2009-10 & 2010-11 are dismissed

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahusl.

section 43(1) of Income Tax Act. This ground is treated as allowed for statistical purposes. 11. As regards the ground relating to restriction of depreciation on mine development to 10% as against 15% claimed, as raised in AY 2011-12 as ground Nos. 9 & 10, the assessee has claimed depreciation @ 15% to the extent

SINGARENI COLLERIES COMPANY LIMITED,HYDERABAD vs. ACIT, CIRCLE-1,, KHAMMAM

In the result, both the appeals of the revenue for AYs 2009-10 & 2010-11 are dismissed

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahusl.

section 43(1) of Income Tax Act. This ground is treated as allowed for statistical purposes. 11. As regards the ground relating to restriction of depreciation on mine development to 10% as against 15% claimed, as raised in AY 2011-12 as ground Nos. 9 & 10, the assessee has claimed depreciation @ 15% to the extent

THE SINGARENI COLLERIES COMPANY LTD., KOTHJAGUDEM,HYDERABAD vs. ADDL.CITT, KHAMMAM RANGE, KHAMMAM, KHAMMAM

In the result, both the appeals of the revenue for AYs 2009-10 & 2010-11 are dismissed

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahusl.

section 43(1) of Income Tax Act. This ground is treated as allowed for statistical purposes. 11. As regards the ground relating to restriction of depreciation on mine development to 10% as against 15% claimed, as raised in AY 2011-12 as ground Nos. 9 & 10, the assessee has claimed depreciation @ 15% to the extent

ASST. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE-1,, KHAMMAM vs. M/S SINGARENI COLLERIES COMPANY LTD.,, KHAMMAM DIST

In the result, both the appeals of the revenue for AYs 2009-10 & 2010-11 are dismissed

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahusl.

section 43(1) of Income Tax Act. This ground is treated as allowed for statistical purposes. 11. As regards the ground relating to restriction of depreciation on mine development to 10% as against 15% claimed, as raised in AY 2011-12 as ground Nos. 9 & 10, the assessee has claimed depreciation @ 15% to the extent

DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX , CIRCLE-2(2), HYDERABAD vs. GLOBAL ALUMINIUM PRIVATE LIMITED , HYDERABAD

Appeals are dismissed

Bench: Shri S.S. Godara & Shri L.P. Sahu

depreciation upto 1999-2000 under Section 32 of the Act and only in the year under consideration, it started claiming deduction u/s 31 of the Act. The Tribunal pointed out that the dies and moulds were not plant and machinery, yet the replacement of dies and moulds were not in the nature of installation of machinery in the factory. Such

DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-2(2), HYDERABAD vs. GLOBAL ALUMINIUM PRIVATE LIMITED, SECUNDERABAD

Appeals are dismissed

Bench: Shri S.S. Godara & Shri L.P. Sahu

depreciation upto 1999-2000 under Section 32 of the Act and only in the year under consideration, it started claiming deduction u/s 31 of the Act. The Tribunal pointed out that the dies and moulds were not plant and machinery, yet the replacement of dies and moulds were not in the nature of installation of machinery in the factory. Such

INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-2(2), HYDERABAD vs. GLOBAL ALUMINIUM PRIVATE LIMITED , HYDERABAD

Appeals are dismissed

Bench: Shri S.S. Godara & Shri L.P. Sahu

depreciation upto 1999-2000 under Section 32 of the Act and only in the year under consideration, it started claiming deduction u/s 31 of the Act. The Tribunal pointed out that the dies and moulds were not plant and machinery, yet the replacement of dies and moulds were not in the nature of installation of machinery in the factory. Such

DCIT, CIRCLE-2(2), HYDERABAD, HYDERABAD vs. GLOBAL ALUMINIUM PVT. LTD., SECUNDERABAD, SECUNDERABAD

Appeals are dismissed

Bench: Shri S.S. Godara & Shri L.P. Sahu

depreciation upto 1999-2000 under Section 32 of the Act and only in the year under consideration, it started claiming deduction u/s 31 of the Act. The Tribunal pointed out that the dies and moulds were not plant and machinery, yet the replacement of dies and moulds were not in the nature of installation of machinery in the factory. Such