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

penalty imposed under section 45A, we are of the view that the disallowance of the amount of Rs.52 lakhs cannot be termed as an expenditure for the year 2004-05. The second question is answered in favour of the revenue. 22. The third question raised for consideration in these appeals relates to the claim of Rs.1.25 Crores under the head

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

penalty imposed under section 45A, we are of the view that the disallowance of the amount of Rs.52 lakhs cannot be termed as an expenditure for the year 2004-05. The second question is answered in favour of the revenue. 22. The third question raised for consideration in these appeals relates to the claim of Rs.1.25 Crores under the head

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

penalty imposed under section 45A, we are of the view that the disallowance of the amount of Rs.52 lakhs cannot be termed as an expenditure for the year 2004-05. The second question is answered in favour of the revenue. 22. The third question raised for consideration in these appeals relates to the claim of Rs.1.25 Crores under the head

Commissioner of Income Tax vs. Agricultral Market Committee,

Appeal is dismissed

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

depreciation benefit already availed of as claimed by the appellant and that the said wrong availment of credit was done wilfully and intentionally with a view to evading payment of duty and suppressed the said fact from the department and that the department got knowledge of it only on conducting audit of the appellant accounts, a show cause notice

Commissioner of Income Tax, Guntur. vs. Agricultural Market Committee, Narasaraopet.

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

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

depreciation under Section 32(1)(ii) of the Act in respect of intangible assets of Rs.9,07,25,000/- when the same is not identical, and is based on adhoc estimate basis and not on actual cost as per Section 3 43(1) of the Act? 2. Facts leading to filing of this appeal briefly stated are that the assessee

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

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

The appeals are dismissed

Bench: P.SAM KOSHY,SUDDALA CHALAPATHI RAO

depreciation. The rate of minimum tax was kept at a modest figure deeming 30 per cent of book profits as total income. This modest amount is likely to go down further with the downward revision of corporate tax rate to 35 per cent and abolition of surcharge. xxxx xxxx xxxx xxxx 45.4 The Act also inserts a new section 115JAA

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

penalty proceedings under Section 271(1)(c) were to be initiated and third, that the claim for rebate under Section 88E, as an alternative, was to fail since no evidence of the Securities Transaction Tax paid was furnished. It was reasoned that the purpose of a portfolio manager was to optimize returns of the investor. Since the motive