The Commissioner of Income Tax-V vs. Smt.R.Amala Devi

Bench: RAMESH RANGANATHAN,M.SATYANARAYANA MURTHY

Income Tax Assessing Officer for framing an assessment order under Section 144 of the Act did not have the sanction of law, in that, the case of the appellant was selected for scrutiny by issuing notice under Section 143(2) of the Act in gross violation of CBDT guidelines. It is argued that in terms of Clause

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

ADDITIONAL COMMISSINER OF INCOME TAX, RANGE- 2, MYSORE, INL THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE AND EQUITY. THIS INCOME TAX APPEAL COMING ON FOR FINAL HEARING THIS DAY, RAVI MALIMATH, J., DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: J U D G M E N T The assessee is a charitable trust having its office at Nagamangala Taluk, Tumakuru District. It has been in existence since

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 :-

addition to that item or items which have led to the issuance of notice under Section 148 and where ressessment is made under Section 147 in respect of income which has escaped tax, the Income Tax 14 Officer's jurisdiction is confined to only such income which has escaped tax or has been under-assessed and does not extend

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

The appeal is disposed of

ADDITIONAL DIRECTOR OF INCOME TAX, EXEMPTIONS, RANGE- 17, BANGALORE. THIS ITA COMING ON FOR HEARING, THIS DAY, ALOK ARADHE J., DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: JUDGMENT This appeal under Section 260A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as the Act for short) has been preferred by the revenue. The subject matter of the appeal pertains to the Assessment year

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

depreciation, etc. The mandate of these sub-sections is that all such allowances and reliefs would be deemed to have been exhausted during the tax holiday period itself and no part thereof would survive for consideration after the tax holiday period. The amendment made by the Finance Act, 2003 to sub-section (6) with retrospective effect from 01.04.2001 made

PR COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX vs. R SURYANARAYANA

In the result, the appeal filed by the revenue stands

Bench: RAMESH RANGANATHAN,KONGARA VIJAYA LAKSHMI

Income Tax (Appeals) – XX [CIT(A)] which has deleted the addition made by the assessing officer on three issues, namely, foreign travel expenses, claim for additional depreciation

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.

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Cuttack Bench, Cuttack (ITAT) in ITA.2/CTK/98 and CO.9/CTK/9 allowing the Department’s appeal for the assessment year (AY) 1994-95 holding that the Appellant-Company would not be allowed to claim additional depreciation

THE COMMI.OF INCOME TAX,HYD. vs. VAIBHAV

Bench: C.V. BHASKAR REDDY,UJJAL BHUYAN

additions made by the assessing officer as enhanced/affirmed by AT(4. But, at the same time, exercising power under Section 145 of the Act, determined net profit of the assessee at Rs.63,i3,326.00. Funher making allowance for business loss and depreciation of earlier )tars, the income

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

Income Tax Officer & Ors. For the petitioner : Mr. Boudhayan Bhattacharyya Ms. Stuti Bansal Ms. Rinki Saha Mr. S.S. Prasad For the respondents : Md. T.M. Siddiqui, AGP Mr. Tanoy Chakraborty Mr. Saptak Sanyal Heard on : 18.12.2023, 20.12.2023, 09.02.2024 29.02.2024 & 04.03.2024 Judgement on : 05.03.2024 Surya Prakash Kesarwani, J.: 1. Heard Mr. Baudhayan Bhattacharyya, learned counsel for the petitioner

COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-II vs. M/S.TRANSPORT CORPORATION OF INDIA

In the result, we set aside the assessment orders, except to

Bench: P.SAM KOSHY,LAXMI NARAYANA ALISHETTY

depreciation I.T.Appeal No.133/14 & con.cases. -2- claimed. 2. The appeals filed before the Commissioner of Income- tax were disposed of deleting addition

Commissioner of Income Tax vs. Mohan Milk LIne Pvt Ltd

Bench: RAMESH RANGANATHAN,M.SATYANARAYANA MURTHY

depreciation in the previous year 2007-08 and claimed balance 50%, i.e., 10% of 20%, in the Assessment Year 2008-09. The Tribunal held that there is no restriction in the Income Tax Act from availing balance of one-time-incentive in the form of additional

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

Bench: CHALLA KODANDA RAM,G.CHANDRAIAH

depreciation in the previous year 2008-09 and claimed balance 50%, i.e., 10% of 20%, in the Assessment Year 2009-10. The Tribunal held that there is no restriction in the Income Tax Act from availing balance of one-time-incentive in the form of additional

Andhra PRadesh Pradesh Fibres Limited vs. Assistant commissioner of Income Tax

In the result, the order passed by the

Bench: V.V.S.RAO,SANJAY KUMAR

ADDITIONAL COMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX LTDU JSS TOWERS BSK III STAGE BANGALORE. ... APPELLANTS (By Sri.K.V.ARAVIND, ADV.,) AND: M/S ASTRA ZENECA PHARMA INDIA LTD. P.B.NO.2483 OFF BELLARY ROAD HEBBAL BANGALORE. ... RESPONDENT (By Sri.S.PARTHASARATHI SMT.JINITA CHATTERJEE, ADV.) - - - 3 THIS ITA IS FILED UNDER SECTION 260-A OF I.T. ACT, 1961 ARISING OUT OF ORDER DATED 29.09.2011 PASSED IN ITA NO.1202/BANG/2010

M/s.CCL Products [India] Limited vs. The Commissioner of Income Tax-I

income by him from the Central Excise Department without bringing any material on record to justify or support the additions. The impugned additions are liable to be cancelled on this ground alone and are accordingly cancelled. 19. Without prejudice to the aforesaid materials available on record do not establish that the melting capacity of the furnace was 5MT or GURBACHAN

The Commissioner of Income Tax IV vs. Margadarshi Chit Fund Pvt. Ltd.,

The appeal is dismissed

depreciation was ordered to be charged on it. Rs.7650/- were added to the income of the assessee on account of telephone expenses, as the assessee admitted the expenditure incurred on account of telephones installed at residences. Further addition

The Commissioner of Income Tax V vs. Smt. Ch. Uma

ADDITIONAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, RANGE-2, ERNAKULAM ANNEXURE-C TRUE COPY OF APPELLATE ORDER DATED 6.9.2010 OF THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS) II, KOCHI ANNEXURE-D TRUE COPY OF APPEAL DATED 7.12.2010 FILED BY THE RESPONDENT BEFORE THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, KOCHI BENCH ANNEXURE-E CERTIFIED COPY OF ORDER DATED 3.4.2012 OF THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL

Commissioner of Income Tax vs. M/s Ch.Veeraju AND co.

ADDITIONAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, RANGE-2, ERNAKULAM ANNEXURE-C TRUE COPY OF APPELLATE ORDER DATED 6.9.2010 OF THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS) II, KOCHI ANNEXURE-D TRUE COPY OF APPEAL DATED 7.12.2010 FILED BY THE RESPONDENT BEFORE THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, KOCHI BENCH ANNEXURE-E CERTIFIED COPY OF ORDER DATED 3.4.2012 OF THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL

Commissioner of Income Tax - VI vs. M/s. S.P. Steels

ADDITIONAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, RANGE-2, ERNAKULAM ANNEXURE-C TRUE COPY OF APPELLATE ORDER DATED 6.9.2010 OF THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS) II, KOCHI ANNEXURE-D TRUE COPY OF APPEAL DATED 7.12.2010 FILED BY THE RESPONDENT BEFORE THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, KOCHI BENCH ANNEXURE-E CERTIFIED COPY OF ORDER DATED 3.4.2012 OF THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL