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 computed at Rs.1,14,95,443/- as per Income Tax Rules. The total loss carried forward was Rs.12

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

M/s.V.R.Farms Pvt Ltd vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax

The appeals are dismissed

Bench: P.SAM KOSHY,SUDDALA CHALAPATHI RAO

loss was caused to the revenue and, therefore, the question of compensation itself would not arise. It was also contended that the amendments to the said Explanation 1 after section 234B(1) and the Explanation after section 234C(1) were merely curative and clarificatory of the legal position that applied even before 01.04.2007. As regards the cases which involved

The Commissioner of Income Tax-I vs. Ascend Telecom Infrastructure Private Limited

Bench: RAMESH RANGANATHAN,M.SATYANARAYANA MURTHY

carry forward and set off of loss and not excess expenditure or deficit? 3. This Court in case of ‘Commissioner of Income Tax-III, Pune v. Rajasthan & Gujarati Charitable Foundation Poona’ [2018] 89 taxmann.com 127 [SC] with regard to allowability and Depreciation

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

carried forward for subsequent years for application for charitable purposes. The appeal is disposed of as above by answering the question in favour ofthe Revenue but by granting the reliefto the assessee as above." 5. As is clear from paragraph 6 above, the Kerala High Court has relied upon the decision of the Supreme Court in the case of Escorts

The Pr. Commissioner of Income-tax vs. D.L.V. Sridhar

Bench: D.V.S.S.SOMAYAJULU,RAMESH RANGANATHAN

Forward unabsorbed depreciation of Rs.35,15,609/-, against the current years income. The AO therefore, discarded the segment wise Profit & Loss Account of the assessee for the year ended 31.03.2008 (AY 2008-09), based on separate sets of books of account maintained by the assessee for its STPI & Non STPI units (marketing & Unallocated), by interalia, observing that there

AP. STATE SEEDS DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION, HYD. vs. THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-I, HYD.

Bench: C.V. BHASKAR REDDY,UJJAL BHUYAN

loss or the amount of depreciation which woul l be required to be set off against the profit I / 8 of the relevant previous year as if the provisions of clause (b) of the first proviso to sub-section (1) of Section 205 of the Companies Act, 1956 (1 of 1956), are applicable. (2) Nothing contained in sub-section

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

Bench: RAMESH RANGANATHAN,M.SATYANARAYANA MURTHY

losses under Chapter VI or tion under sub-section (2) of computing deductions under urposes of the said aggregation, to set off of brought forward VI or unabsorbed depreciation of section 32;] g s f f s n d e r h n n d l e f r f r d n VARINDER SINGH 2024.11.14 14:36 I attest

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

In the result, these appeals fail and are

Bench: RAMESH RANGANATHAN,M.SEETHARAMA MURTI

depreciation rate is spelt out in the Schedule to the Income-tax Act in our opinion is not conclusive as to the nature of the expenditure and whether it resulted in enduring advantage to a particular assessee. It is nobody's case that the assessee is dealing with computer softwares or is in the business of any related services. Rather

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