Commissioner of Income Tax-VI vs. Sri Taraka Jewellers

Assessment Year 2006-07. The appeal deals with the questions of disallowance made by the Tribunal of the expenditure incurred by the assessee towards club expenses and disallowance of part of depreciation of Gurgaon building. I.T.A. No.274/2013 -3- 2.1 The substantial questions read as follows: “1. Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case the Tribunal

The Commissioner of Income tax III vs. M/s. Sree Sree Wines

Accordingly, the appeal (ITAT/75/2010) stands dismissed

Bench: RAMESH RANGANATHAN,M.SATYANARAYANA MURTHY

Assessing Officer in applying the provisions of the second proviso to Section 32(1) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 on block of assets on which 100% depreciation

The Comissioner of Income Tax III, vs. Smt. Shanti Singh,

Bench: RAMESH RANGANATHAN,M.SATYANARAYANA MURTHY

block peri (ca) where the due date fo expired, but no return in cases not falling un (d) where the previous ye filing the return of in section 139 has not e relating to such incom the books of account a in the normal course search or requisition r (e) where any order of se sub-section (4) of sect

PROGREESIVE CONSTRUCTIONS LIMITED vs. JT. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX

Bench: C.V. BHASKAR REDDY,UJJAL BHUYAN

Block, Abids, HYDERABAD. by K. Bhaskara Rao, R.R. Towers, C.A. Lane, ...APPELLANT Jt. Commissioner of income tax, Jt. Commissioner of lncome Tax Special Range - 3, Hyderabad. ...RESPONDENT AND Counsel for the Appellant : SRI CHALLA GUNARANJAN Counsel for the Respondents: J V PRASAD (SC FOR INCOME TAX) The Court made the following: ORDER THE HON'BLE THE CHIEFJUSTICE UJJAL BHUYAN

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

Appeal is allowed

Bench: SANJAY KUMAR,GUDISEVA SHYAM PRASAD

assessment year commencing on the 1st day of April, 1988, the aggregate of the written down values of all the assets falling within that block of assets at the beginning of the previous year and adjusted,- (A)by the increase by the actual cost of any asset falling within that block, acquired during the previous year;” (emphasis supplied

COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-III, HYD vs. M/S. SUJANA METALS LTD, HYD

Bench: P.SAM KOSHY,NARSING RAO NANDIKONDA

block of assets” means a group of assets falling within a class of assets comprising- (a) ….. (b) Intangible assets, being know-how, patents, copyrights, trade-marks, licences, franchises or any other business or commercial rights of similar nature, in respect of which the same percentage of depreciation is prescribed”. 8. It can also be said that the „right to carry

The Commissioner of Income Tax (Central) vs. Hetero Labs Ltd

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

Bench: RAMESH RANGANATHAN,M.SATYANARAYANA MURTHY

BLOCK JAYANAGAR BANGALORE-560011. ... APPELLANT (BY SRI. ASHOK A. KULAKARNI, ADV.,) AND: THE INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD 11 (2), No.14/3 R.P. BUILDING, 5TH FLOOR NRUPATHUNGA ROAD BANGALORE-560001. ... RESPONDENT (BY SRI. K.V. ARAVIND, ADV.) - - - THIS ITA IS FILED UNDER SECTION 260-A OF I.T. ACT, 1961 ARISING OUT OF ORDER DATED 11.04.2014 PASSED IN ITA NO.589/BANG/2013 FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR

Principal Commissioner of Income Tax-2 vs. M/s Indur Green Power Private Limited

In the result, all the appeals fail and are hereby

Bench: RAMESH RANGANATHAN,M.SATYANARAYANA MURTHY

Depreciation 1,05,72,696 1,10,86,334 1,26,18,427 1,39,66,450 Total Expenditure 4,81,29,896 4,75,41,722 5,01,63,902 3,88,21,912 Profit for the year 2,53,21,438 2,09,87,242 62,58,319 836236 Add Balance brought forward

Principal Commissioner of Income Tax - 5 vs. M/s Vijay Textiles Limited

The appeal is dismissed

Bench: RAMESH RANGANATHAN,M.SATYANARAYANA MURTHY

assess an AOP or its member, whichever was beneficial to the revenue, this option is no 6 more there under the corresponding charging section 4 of the present Act. This has been clearly brought out by Hon. Apex Court in the case of Ch Atchaiah’s case (supra). The scheme of taxation of AOP under different circumstances has been laid

Commissioner of Income Tax, Rajahmundry vs. M/s. Kakinada Coop. Town Bank LTd., Kakinada

Bench: The Court Is: “Whether, The Shares Invested Through A Portfolio Management

depreciating value”, and that the PMS is supposed to “provide the skill and expertise to steer through the complex volatile and dynamic conditions of the market”. The order may be extracted in relevant part: “10. Under PMS a person deposits the money under the contract for a period normally not less one year. After depositing the money the investment