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

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

Appeal is allowed

Bench: SANJAY KUMAR,GUDISEVA SHYAM PRASAD

deduction of Rs. 25,23,333/- (being 1/3 of 75.7 lakhs) is claimed every year for a period of three years. 8 3.1 The assessee was asked to justify this claim in the light of the provisions of section 32, which allow depreciation

COMM.OF INCOMETAX AP I HYD vs. M/S.DIAMOND HATCHERIES P.LTD HYD

depreciation and investment allowance have to be deducted before giving the special deduction under section 80HH under Chapter IA. The High

M/s. CCL Products (India) Ltd., vs. The Commissioner of Income Tax -1

In the result, the appeals are dismissed

depreciation from total income for computing deduction u/s.10A of the Act? b) Whether the Tribunal was correct in not taking

Commissioner of IncomeTax-II, vs. M/S RK Hair Products Pvt Limited,

In the result, the appeals are dismissed

depreciation from total income for computing deduction u/s.10A of the Act? b) Whether the Tribunal was correct in not taking

Commissioner of Income Tax vs. Mohan Milk Line Pvt Ltd

The appeals are allowed only to the aforesaid

Bench: RAMESH RANGANATHAN,M.SATYANARAYANA MURTHY

depreciation of earlier years while computing the deduction u/s.10A by holding that it did not find any infirmity of the order

The Commissioner of Income Tax-II, vs. M/s Padmapriya Real Estates AND Financiers

In the result, the appeal is allowed and the impugned judgment passed by

Bench: RAMESH RANGANATHAN,M.SATYANARAYANA MURTHY

deducting 30 % of depreciation, cost of the construction was comes to Rs. 3,59,000/- and he proved the valuation

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 :-

deduction including under section 43B in respect of the interest paid to the financial institutions of Rs.3,63,33,321/- for the assessment year 1999-2000 and Rs.60,50,250/- for the assessment year 2000-01 ? 2) Whether on a true and proper interpretation of the provisions of section 32 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 depreciation

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

The appeals are dismissed

Bench: P.SAM KOSHY,NARSING RAO NANDIKONDA

deduction on account of depreciation in respect of such machinery or plant has been allowed or is allowable under the provision

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

deduction on account of depreciation is required to be made as per stipulation of Section 7 of the Act of 1944. We find

INCOME TAX BANGALORE vs. SHALINI BHUPAL

Appeal is dismissed

deduction on account of depreciation in respect of such machi-nery or plant has been allowed or is allowable under

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

The appeals are dismissed

Bench: P.SAM KOSHY,SUDDALA CHALAPATHI RAO

deductions and high rates of depreciation. The rate of minimum tax was kept at a modest figure deeming 30 per cent

Commissioner of Income Tax vs. Sri P.Sarveswara Rao

Appeals are partly allowed, in view of the

Bench: RAMESH RANGANATHAN,M.SATYANARAYANA MURTHY

depreciation and not the grant of deduction in respect of Sales-tax collections which had not been paid in accordance

COMM.OF INCOME TAX,AP -I,HYDERABAD vs. M/S.LAKSHMI BUILIDERS,HYD

The appeal is hereby allowed

Bench: C.V. BHASKAR REDDY,UJJAL BHUYAN

deducted? (2) Whether the Tribunal was justified in holding that no depreciation was allowable on a sum of Rs.3,59,803/- claimed

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

Bench: RAMESH RANGANATHAN,M.SATYANARAYANA MURTHY

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

Commissioner of Income Tax, vs. Agricultural Market Committee,

In the result, the appeal (ITA/70/2011) is allowed to the extent indicated

Bench: : The Hon’Ble Justice T.S. Sivagnanam & The Hon’Ble Justice Hiranmay Bhattacharyya Date : 20Th March, 2023 Appearance : Mr. C. Bhaskaran, Adv. Ms. Swapna Das, Adv. …For The Appellant. Mr. Aryak Dutt, Adv. …For The Respondent.. The Court : - This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Under Section 260A Of The Income Tax Act (The Act) Is Directed Against The Order Dated September 30, 2009 Passed By The Income Tax Appellate Tribunal “B” Bench, Kolkata In Ita No.2486/Kol/2007 For The Assessment Year 2003-2004. The Appeal Was Admitted On 18.03.2011 On The Following Substantial Questions Of Law:- “1. Whether The Tribunal Below, While Interpreting Section 36(1)(Viia)(A) Of The Income-Tax Act, 1961, Committed Substantial Error Of Law In Holding That Deduction Under The First Proviso Was Alternative To That Under Sub-Clause (A) & That No Deduction Under The First Proviso Was Allowable If Deduction Had Been Allowed Under Sub-Clause (A) Thereby Rejecting The Appellant’S

deduction in the appellant’s case in respect of provisions for bad and doubtful debts, standard assets, depreciation of investment

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

The appeal is dismissed

Bench: RAMESH RANGANATHAN,M.SATYANARAYANA MURTHY

deducting from the gross receipts all expenses incurred by the Second Party for the development and for promotion and marketing campaigns, depreciation

THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX - II vs. M/s. E.C.I. Engineering AND Construction Co. Ltd.,

In the result, the appeal is dismissed

deduction u/s. 10B of the Act, is to be computed without setting off of brought 3 forward business loss and unabsorbed depreciation