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

business income or as income from other sources? 40. For the assessment year 2009-10 also the assessee renewed the lease agreement with ATL for a further period of 12 months. The terms of the lease are almost identical as in the earlier years. No change of circumstances has been brought to our notice to vary the finding

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

business income or as income from other sources? 40. For the assessment year 2009-10 also the assessee renewed the lease agreement with ATL for a further period of 12 months. The terms of the lease are almost identical as in the earlier years. No change of circumstances has been brought to our notice to vary the finding

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

business income or as income from other sources? 40. For the assessment year 2009-10 also the assessee renewed the lease agreement with ATL for a further period of 12 months. The terms of the lease are almost identical as in the earlier years. No change of circumstances has been brought to our notice to vary the finding

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

The appeals are dismissed

Bench: P.SAM KOSHY,NARSING RAO NANDIKONDA

business’. In the case of rental income from the building clearly falling under the head `Income from House Property’, the building shall not be entitled for depreciation

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

depreciation, reserves, etc., a part of it should in all fairness go to the employees.” 30. In the said case the Supreme Court was considering whether payment for ITA 210/2003 & connected matters Page 17 of 36 the extra services rendered by an employee could be allowed as business expenditure. It was held that for the purposes of allowing commercial

Commissioner of Income Tax, vs. M/s. Kokivenkateswara Reddy AND others,

Appeals of the Revenue are dismissed

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

depreciation, reserves, etc., a part of it should in all fairness go to the employees.” 30. In the said case the Supreme Court was considering whether payment for ITA 210/2003 & connected matters Page 17 of 36 the extra services rendered by an employee could be allowed as business expenditure. It was held that for the purposes of allowing commercial

The Commissioner of Income Tax - IV vs. M/s. Mekins Agro Product (P) Ltd.

business income of charitable trust also has to be computed in the same manner as provided under section 29 of the Income-tax Act. However, the issue that requires consideration is when the expenditure incurred for acquisition of depreciable

Commissioner of Income Tax vs. Agricultural Market Committee

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

business. The Department, however, was of the opinion that the interest income does not change its character merely because they are from the deposits which are by reason of a contract and the same can only be treated as income from other sources. On the question of whether depreciation

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

Bench: P.SAM KOSHY,NARSING RAO NANDIKONDA

depreciation is prescribed”. 8. It can also be said that the „right to carry on any business‟ has been recognized by the legislature as capital asset for the purposes of assessing and computing the capital gains as is clear from the reading of Section 55 (2) (a) of the Act, which is in the following terms:- (2) For the purposes

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

business income”. It held that the nature of a PMS agreement is that it “prevents holding of dormant of stocks of depreciating

Commissioner of Income Tax (TDS), vs. M/s Country Club Inda Limited

business income attributable to its PE in India. Factual background 8. The Assessee (formerly known as Nortel Networks RIHC Inc) was incorporated as a company on 7th June, 2002 under the laws applicable in the State of Delaware, USA and is a tax resident of USA. The Assessee is a part of Nortel Group which is stated

M/SVISWARUPA BUILDERS AND DEVELOPERS P LTD/. vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER,WARD/3(I) HYDERABAD

Bench: C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY,T.AMARNATH GOUD

income from business source”. The assessee has claimed the expenditure and depreciation on building, and maintenance. The Assessing Officer (AO), on consideration

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

income for the purposes of NIL liability and adjust the balance of unabsorbed depreciation against other business income once again

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

The appeal is disposed of

Income Expenses (excluding business activity and Depreciation) Expenditure as per Income and Expenditure Account-Donation Less: Capital Expenditure 8,51,352 38,94,805 48,97,84,885 3,07,77,395 45,90,07,490 Deduction

Commissioner of Income Tax-III vs. Sri N.Sai Baba Naidu

Bench: J SREENIVAS RAO,ALOK ARADHE

business in the name and style of Garg Dyeing and Processing Industries. In respect of the assessment year 2007-08, he filed a return of income on 31.10.2007, which was first processed under Section 143(1), but later picked up for scrutiny. In the course of the assessment proceedings under Section 143(3), the assessing officer examined the contention

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 in respect of those assets cannot be taken into account. This view of the Tribunal has been confirmed by the Bombay High Court in the above judgment. Therefore, 9 the first substantial question of law held in favour of the assessee and against the Revenue. 9. Hence, following the aforesaid judgments, the first substantial question of law is answered

The Commissioner of Income Tax -V, vs. M/S Secunderabad Club

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

business of the Assessee Company and are not unit specific. Such expenses are advertisements and sales promotion ₹ 29,45,33,370/-. These expenses have to apportion according W.P.(C) 422/2006, 2794/2008, 2795/2008 & 8177/2008 Page 4 of 10 to sales which has not been done resulting in excess claim of deduction in certain units and increased loss in certain units

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

depreciation in accordance with Section 7A of the Bengal Agricultural Income Tax Act, 1944 (hereinafter referred to as the Act of 1944) and not under Section 7 thereof. Facts : 3. Briefly stated facts of the present case are that the petitioner is engaged in business