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

The appeals are dismissed

Bench: P.SAM KOSHY,SUDDALA CHALAPATHI RAO

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

COMM OF INCOME TAX, HYD vs. M/S. BALAN NATURAL FOOD PRIVATE LTD., HYD

Bench: RAMESH RANGANATHAN,KONGARA VIJAYA LAKSHMI

depreciation claimed on securities classified as ‘Held to Maturity’ and further held that the assessee had earned aggregate sum of Rs.68,65,73,177/-, which is exempt

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

Bench: RAMESH RANGANATHAN,M.SATYANARAYANA MURTHY

Exemption) v. Framjee Cawasjee Institute (1993) 109 CTR 463 (Bom). In that case, the facts were as follows: The assessee was the Trust. It derived its income from depreciable

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 claimed by the assessee in respect of the buildings amounting to Rs.4,92,10,011/- which was already allowed in the earlier assessment years, was disallowed for the purpose of computing exemption

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

In the result, these appeals fail and are

Bench: RAMESH RANGANATHAN,M.SEETHARAMA MURTI

depreciation, if any, is to be provided and allowed for in the account? 7. Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal erred in concluding that banking companies are exempt

Som Bhupal vs. The Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax

The appeals are disposed of in the above terms

Bench: GODA RAGHURAM,M.S.RAMACHANDRA RAO

depreciation under Section 32 of the Income Tax Act even when the assessee was not the owner of the property in question and was in possession thereof as a lessee during the year under consideration? (ii) Whether the ITAT was correct in law in holding that the amount received by the assessee by way of exemption

Commissioner of Income Tax vs. Agricultural Market Committee

Bench: The Hon'Ble Mr. Justice Ravi Malimath

depreciation on valuation of investment portfolio is allowable by treating the investments held by the assessee bank as stock-in-trade once the RBI Master Circular read with CBDT Circular No.665 came into force? 3 ii. Whether on the facts and circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was right in law in deleting the addition representing expenditure relating to earning

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

The appeal is disposed of

exemption under Section 80IB(10) of the Act can be claimed by an undertaking involved in developing and housing project, irrespective of it being a charitable trust. It is also argued that the Tribunal has rightly set aside the order passed under Section 263 of the Act. It is also urged that decision relied upon by the revenue

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

EXEMPTION) Appellant Through Mr. N.P. Sahni with ]^. Nitin Gulati and Mr. P. Roychaoudhari, Advocates. versus M/S INTERNATIONAL GOUDIYA VEDANTA TRUST Respondent Through Ms. Prem Lata Bansal, Sr. Advocate with Mr. Ram Avtar Bansal, Mr. S.K. Khurana and Mr. Sanjay Sharma, Advocates. + ITA 449/2013 (AssessmentYear 2007-08) THE DIRECTOR OF INCOME TAX LAXMI NAGAR DELHI Appellant Through Mr. N.P. Sahni with

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

Exemption), Ahmedabad i.e. Shri Ram Sanehi has accorded approval u/s. 80G(5) to the assessee vide order dated 23/7/2007.” 8. The assessee submitted before the Assessing Officer that the registration granted under Section 12A of the Act and also the recognition under Section 80G(5) of the Act by the Director of Income Tax-(E), Ahmedabad would be binding

Commissioner of Income Tax vs. Sri P.Sarveswara Rao

Appeals are partly allowed, in view of the

Bench: RAMESH RANGANATHAN,M.SATYANARAYANA MURTHY

exempted by the State Govt. in the form of subsidy for installing industrial units in backward ITA 315/2003 & connected cases Page 5 of 27 areas does not help if at all. Section 43-B opens with an overriding clause making it obligatory that any deduction of a sum “payable by the assessee by way of tax, duty, cess

The Commissioner of Income Tax-IV vs. M/s.Mold-Tek Technologies Ltd

Bench: RAMESH RANGANATHAN,M.SATYANARAYANA MURTHY

exempt, as they should be. However, some entities carrying on regular trade, commerce or business or providing services in relation to any trade, commerce or business and earning incomes have sought to claim that their purposes would also fall under charitable purpose. Obviously, this was not the intention of Parliament and, hence, I propose to amend the law to exclude

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 claimed by the assessee was also allowed. In all other respects, the assessment orders were confirmed. 3. The Revenue and the assessee filed appeals challenging the orders passed by the first appellate authority before the Tribunal. The Tribunal disposed of those appeals by Annexure C orders. The appeals filed by the Revenue were allowed and among the appeals filed

The Commissioner of Income Tax-III vs. Smt.Anitha Sanghi

Bench: RAMESH RANGANATHAN,M.SATYANARAYANA MURTHY

depreciation on securities (iv) floating rate notes of London branch (v) DICGC loans (vi) suits filed accounts (vii) miscellaneous provision cannot be added back in accordance with Explanation of Section 115JA of the Act in the light of the judgment of the Apex court in H.C.L. Comnet when there is diminution in the value of assets as contended

Commissioner of Income-Tax, vs. Rangaraya Medical College Old Students Association

Bench: RAMESH RANGANATHAN,M.SATYANARAYANA MURTHY

exemption, if granted in that hehalf l.x.rhe c6qp411n1 authority. Hereinafter we shall discuss lhat aspect of thc ruattcr. 1 1- 1. Thus, the Honble Supreme Court has held that no licence is required under the Reforms Act for utilisation o[ enerry generated by APGPCL which is utitised by participating industnes. Howevei-, it was hcLj tirat iicence would be necessary

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 and the adjustment against the income of the respective assessment year, was at large to be considered. The peculiar circumstances in the case are that in the earlier round of litigation, the question - 8 - of entitlement was considered and further, the computation thereof was indirectly deemed as concluded. The order of the CIT (Appeals) can be considered in light

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

The appeals are dismissed

Bench: P.SAM KOSHY,NARSING RAO NANDIKONDA

depreciation in respect of such machinery or plant has been allowed or is allowable under the provision of this Act in computing the total income of any person for any period prior to the date of the installation of machinery or plant by the assessee. Explanation 2.-Where in the case of an [undertaking], any machinery or plant

PR COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX vs. R SURYANARAYANA

In the result, the appeal filed by the revenue stands

Bench: RAMESH RANGANATHAN,KONGARA VIJAYA LAKSHMI

depreciation and commission to foreign and Indian agents. The other issue was with regard to the restricting the disallowance under Section 14A of the Act read with Rule 8D of the Income Tax Rules, 1962. On the first three issues we find that the tribunal has made a thorough factual exercise and took note of the documents and details noted