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

Section 11(1). On the capital asset, the assessee also claims depreciation say @ 20%. Accordingly, the assessee claims that the application

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

depreciation and the mistake was bona fide without any mala fide intention to avoid any tax liability. 18. On the point of the contention of the appellant company that it was not proper to impose penalty under section 271(1

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

Appeal is allowed

Bench: SANJAY KUMAR,GUDISEVA SHYAM PRASAD

Section 32(1) of the IT Act stipulates as follows: “32. Depreciation. (1) In respect of depreciation of— (i)buildings

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

1. Nortel Networks India International Inc. (hereafter ‗the Assessee‘) has preferred the present appeals under Section 260A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereafter ‗the Act‘) against orders passed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (hereafter ‗ITAT‘). ITA Nos. 669/2014, 671/2014 and 672/2014 are appeals preferred by the Assessee against a common ITA 666/2014 & Ors. Page 4 of 57 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

Section 313 of Cr.P.C. has also been recorded in which he denied the circumstances appears against him, plead innocence and have submitted that he was posted as Junior Engineer from April 1978 to 1979 at PNT Department, Nasik. He was working since February 1980 in Irrigation Department. But the income of the said period was not counted. His wife

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

Bench: RAMESH RANGANATHAN,M.SATYANARAYANA MURTHY

Section 16 of the Reforms Act, was granted. The order passed by the APERC was upheld by a Bench of this Court by an order dated 08.O6.2O01 in C.M.A.No.L97I of 2OOO and other connected matters- 10. Against the aforesaid order passed by a Bench of tltis Court, a Special Leave Peti(ion was preferred. 11. The Honble Supreme

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. The relevant extract of Section 32(1) of the Act, reads as under: 32(1) In respect of depreciation

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

Bench: C.V. BHASKAR REDDY,UJJAL BHUYAN

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

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

Bench: RAMESH RANGANATHAN,KONGARA VIJAYA LAKSHMI

depreciation on ‘Held to Maturity’ category investments even though the same is notional in nature and against the RBI guidelines for valuation of securities? 4. Whether on the facts and in the circumstances on the case, the Tribunal were right in law in holding that the assessee is eligible for deduction under section 36(1

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

depreciation, therefore, Section 7 read with Rule 3 shall apply. Discussion and findings : 6. We have carefully considered the submissions of the learned counsel for the parties and perused the record of the petition. 7. Entry 46 of List II-State List under Schedule VII to the Constitution of India provides field of Legislation on “Taxes on Agricultural Income”. Thus

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

Bench: RAMESH RANGANATHAN,M.SATYANARAYANA MURTHY

1)(a) of the Income Tax Act. The court rejected the argument on behalf of the revenue that section 32 of the Income Tax Act was the only section granting benefit of deduction on account of depreciation

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 4,07,88,644 1

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

1) applies are for the purposes of determining the quantum of deduction to be computed as if such eligible business were the only source of income of the assessee during the previous year relevant to the ITA 386/2013 Page 6 initial assessment year and to every subsequent assessment year. A provision akin to sub-section (5) of section

THE COMMI.OF INCOME TAX,HYD. vs. VAIBHAV

Bench: C.V. BHASKAR REDDY,UJJAL BHUYAN

1,87,218.00 are concemed, CXT(A) did not found any infirmity in the decision taken by the assessing officer and therefore, confirmed the above two conditions by the appellate order dated 27.02.2001.. 9. Assessee preferred funher appeal before the Tribunal assailing the order of CT(A) dated 27.02.2001. Tribunal, by the order dated 28.01,.20A2, deleted the additions

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

The appeals are dismissed

Bench: P.SAM KOSHY,NARSING RAO NANDIKONDA

1) of the Act on 28.08.2006. The case was selected for scrutiny by issue of notice under Section 143(2) dated 25.07.2006, which was duly served on the assessee Company. The - - 8 assessee in response to the notice issued appeared on 13.12.2007 and 14.12.2007 and filed written submissions. The assessee claimed that they are in the business of providing comprehensive

The Commissioner of Income tax III vs. M/s. Sree Sree Wines

Accordingly, the appeal (ITAT/75/2010) stands dismissed

Bench: RAMESH RANGANATHAN,M.SATYANARAYANA MURTHY

Section 32(1) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 on block of assets on which 100% depreciation has been prescribed

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

1) by the Income Tax Officer, Mandya. The case was selected for scrutiny in accordance with the scrutiny guidelines issued by the Central Board of Direct Taxes. Notice under Section 143(2) was issued and served on the assessee on 23.08.2007. In response to the same, the Internal Auditor has appeared and represented the case and produced various documents

The Commissioner of Income Tax (Central) vs. Hetero Labs Ltd

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

Bench: RAMESH RANGANATHAN,M.SATYANARAYANA MURTHY

1.—For the purposes of this section, “book profit” means the net profit as shown in the profit and loss account for the relevant previous year prepared under sub- section (2), as increased by— (a) the amount of income-tax paid or payable, and the provision therefor; or (b) the amounts carried to any reserves, by whatever name called, other