Commissioenr of Income Tax vs. Dr. T. Ravi Kumar

depreciation loss of Rs. 446,70,45,911/- and carried forward depreciation relating to A. Y. 1994-95 of Rs. 193,70,11,434/-. The return

Commissioner of Income Tax, vs. Dr. T.Ravi Kumar,

Bench: : The Hon’Ble Justice Surya Prakash Kesarwani & The Hon’Ble Justice Rajarshi Bharadwaj Date : 10Th April, 2024. Appearance: Mr. J. P. Khaitan, Senior Advocate Mr. Sanjay Bhowmick, Advocate Ms. Swapna Das, Advocate … For The Appellant. Ms. Smita Das De, Advocate … For The Respondent. 1. Heard Sri J. P. Khaitan, Learned Senior Advocate Assisted By Sri Sanjay Bhowmick, Learned Counsel For The Appellant/Assessee & Ms. Smita Das De, Learned Senior Standing Counsel For The Respondent. 2. The Assessment Years Involved In The Present Appeal Are Assessment Year 1999-2000 & Assessment Year 2000-01. By Order Dated 16.08.2012, This Appeal Was Admitted On The Following Substantial Questions Of Law :-

depreciation was allowed, fully depreciation on those asset in earlier years. Further the claim of the appellant is supported by the DCIT

Dr.V.Suryanarayana Reddy vs. The Asst. Commissioner of Income Tax

depreciation as per accounting method regularly employed by the assessee company. Depreciation is computable as per Schedule XIV read with

Commissioner of IncomeTax-2, vs. Mr. Mustafa Alam Khan,

Appeal is allowed

Bench: SANJAY KUMAR,GUDISEVA SHYAM PRASAD

Depreciation. (1) In respect of depreciation of— (i)buildings, machinery, plant or furniture, being tangible assets; (ii)know-how, patents

Commissioner of Income Tax vs. Agricultral Market Committee,

Appeal is dismissed

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

depreciation of this part of value of capital goods which represents the amount of duty on such capital goods under

Commissioner of Income Tax [TDS] vs. The Executive Engineer

In the result, these appeals fail and are

Bench: RAMESH RANGANATHAN,M.SEETHARAMA MURTI

depreciation on these securities has to be aggregated script-wise and only net depreciation, if any, is to be provided

Commissioner of Income Tax, Guntur. vs. Agricultural Market Committee, Narasaraopet.

In the result, we do not find any merit in this

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

depreciation. The relevant extract of Section 32(1) of the Act, reads as under: 32(1) In respect of depreciation

Commissioner of Income tax vs. Sri. B. Ramesh,

depreciation has to be worked out in accordance with Rules prescribed in Schedule XIV of the Companies Act for the purpose

The Commissioner of Income Tax IV vs. M/s Matrix Power Pvt Ltd.,

depreciation, the Assessee may get exemption but nonetheless it could not take only a portion of depreciation just to suit

THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX R.MUNDRY vs. A.VENKATESWARLU AND OTHERS

The appeal is allowed in the above terms with no

Bench: The Assessing Officer (Ao) & Claimed Depreciation Allowance On The Increased Cost Of The Plant & Machinery Due To Exchange Fluctuations. The Ao In The Assessment Order Dated 31St March 1997 Rejected The Above Claim.

depreciation allowance. It is for the purpose of working out the amount of depreciation that one has to look at the cost

Commissioner of Income Tax vs. Mohan Milk LIne Pvt Ltd

Bench: RAMESH RANGANATHAN,M.SATYANARAYANA MURTHY

depreciation allowed under Section32(1)(iia) of the Act. The assessee could avail 50% of allowed depreciation on account of the fact

The Commissioner of Income Tax-1 vs. Harmahendar Singh Bagga

Bench: CHALLA KODANDA RAM,G.CHANDRAIAH

depreciation allowed under Section32(1)(iia) of the Act. The assessee could avail 50% of allowed depreciation on account of the fact

COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-II, HYDERABAD vs. M/s. Sri Ramanjaneya Poultry Farm Private Limited,

Bench: CHALLA KODANDA RAM,G.CHANDRAIAH

depreciation as applicable to plant and not the rate of depreciation as applicable to building? Both the learned counsel have

COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-II, HYDERABAD vs. M/s. Sri Ramanjaneya Poultry Farm Private Limited

Bench: CHALLA KODANDA RAM,G.CHANDRAIAH

depreciation as applicable to plant and not the rate of depreciation as applicable to building? Both the learned counsel have

Commissioner of Income Tax vs. Agricultural Market Committee

In the result we do not find any merit in the appeal

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

depreciation even when they dodo not provide processing activity and do not contain all features of computers and such cannot

THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-III vs. M/S. SOMA ENTERPRISES LTD

The appeal is disposed off accordingly

Bench: The Hon'Ble Mr. Justice Ravi Malimath

depreciation, the Trust had claimed deduction towards depreciation allowance 4 amounting to Rs.8,41,36,636/- which includes depreciation of the building

The Commissioner of income Tax-II vs. M/s.Ideal Industrial Explosives Ltd

Bench: RAMESH RANGANATHAN,M.SATYANARAYANA MURTHY

depreciation. The question on depreciation is, hence, answered in favour of the assessee and against the Revenue affirming the view

Commissioner of Income Tax vs. Agricultural Market Committee

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

depreciation is permitted to be set off as against such income. If not, as we earlier noticed, the depreciation cannot