The Commissioner of Income Tax-IV vs. M/s Pokarna Limited

The appeals are dismissed

Bench: P.SAM KOSHY,NARSING RAO NANDIKONDA

24 sub-section (4), the provisions of this sub- section shall have effect as if for the words “fifteen years”, the words “twenty years” had been substituted.] [(2A) Notwithstanding anything contained in sub-section (1) or sub-section (2), the deduction in computing the total income of an undertaking providing telecommunication services, specified in clause (ii) of sub-section

The Commissioner of Income Tax(Central) vs. M/s.Madhu Enterprises

Bench: The Learned

gain on transfer of certain capital assets not to be charged in case of investment in residential house. *** *** *** Provided that nothing contained in this sub-section shall apply where.– (a) the assessee,– (i) owns more than one residential house, other than the new asset, on the date of the transfer of the original asset; or” 14. The AO held 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

gains, they should be treated as capital expenditure in the hands of the Assessee, was not based on sound reasoning. (iv) Expenditure on purchase of stock and trade is charged to the P&L and trading account at the time of purchase, which cannot be deferred. The observation of the AO that the Appellant was free to claim the deduction

Principal Commissioner of Income Tax vs. Sri Nama Nageshwar Rao

Bench: P.SAM KOSHY,LAXMI NARAYANA ALISHETTY

capital gain on the ground that the evidences found during search at the premises of entry provider cannot be the basis for making additions in assessment completed u/S. 153A in the case of beneficiary ignoring the vital fact that there was a common search u/s 132 conducted on the same day in both the cases of the entry provider

M/S NATIONAL ACADEMY OF CONSTRUCTION vs. ASST. DIRECTOR OF INCOME TAX

Bench: P.SAM KOSHY,LAXMI NARAYANA ALISHETTY

capital receipt and therefore both, section 11 (5) and Section 13 (l) (d) of the Act, would not be applicable. 15- Learned counsel appearing for the department on the other harrd justifying the order of the ITAT, contended that since the order of the assessing ofhcer has already been subjected to scrutiny and challenge, there is hardly any scope left

M/S.P.SATYANARAYANA AND SONS vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD 1[9], HYDERABAD

Appeals are allowed

Bench: P.SAM KOSHY,NARSING RAO NANDIKONDA

24 6.2 All materials received from CGI Group Inc. under this Agreement shall be and remain the property of CGI Group Inc. and shall be returned to CGI Group Inc. upon termination of this agreement. 7. This Agreement is effective 1st October 2001 and shall remain in effect unless terminated by either party as otherwise provided in this Agreement. Termination

M/s Durga Granites, vs. The Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle - 1,

Bench: P.SAM KOSHY,LAXMI NARAYANA ALISHETTY

24-2-1382, Vishwa Apartment, New Military Colony, 2025:JHHC:29619-DB 101 Opposite LIC Office, Nellore Dargamitta, P.O. & P.S. Nellore Dargamitta, District Dargamitta, PIN-524003 (Andhra Pradesh). ..........Petitioner. -Versus- 1. The State of Jharkhand, through its Secretary, Department of Industries, Mines and Geology, having its office at Yojna Bhawan, P.O. and P.S. Doranda, District Ranchi