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 is in conflict 11 with the provisions of Section 32 of the Act read with Rule 5 of the Income Tax Rules, 1962. 10. Learned counsel for the respondent has supported the impugned order of the ITAT. Decision and Findings 11. We have carefully considered the submissions of the parties and perused the paper book. Substantial Question

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

10. We also note that the Kerala High Court, in fact, has noted the clarifications whichwere earlierissuedby the Boardin respectof 1968 circular. It is clear from the reasoning given by the Kerala High Court that they have not gone by the express language of Section 11(a) and have purposively interpreted the provision. 11. Clause 'a' of Section 11(1

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

1 lakh, he withdrew Rs. 77,000/- in 3 installments upto 23.09.1996 and there was no repayment of loan till 23.09.1996. 32. PW-21, Madan Ramrath is the employee of the Central Bank, Dhamtari had proved the document Ex.P/75 and Ex.P/76 by which the ledger of the bank 10 account of the appellant has been proved. He gave details

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 under various sub-Sections of Section 10 of the Act and disallowed the aforesaid amount in terms of Section 14A of the Act. A sum of Rs.3,43,28,658/- being 5% thereof

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

Appeal is allowed

Bench: SANJAY KUMAR,GUDISEVA SHYAM PRASAD

1) nor Section 43(6) of the Act would stand attracted. It is further contended that the authorities have erred in not considering the contention of the assessee regarding the “rule of consistency”, inasmuch as the deduction as claimed by the assessee having been accepted for AYs 2003-04 and 2004-05, the same could not have been rejected

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

10) of section 80-IA shall, so far as may be, apply in relation to the undertaking referred to in the section as they apply for the purposes of an undertaking referred to in section 80-IA. A similar provision corresponding to sub- section (5) of section 80-IA is to be found in sub-section (6) of section

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

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) of Section 205 of the Companies Act, 1956 (1 of 1956), are applicable. (2) Nothing contained in sub-section (l) sha.ll a-ffect the determination

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 under Section 32(1) of the Act. We may refer to the relevant extract of the order passed by the Assessing Officer, which reads as under: What transpires from the above is that Digital Equipment Corporation USA has been taken over by Compaq Computer Corporation. Digital as an entity does not exist after the said takeover except in India

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

1) of section 2 for rendering the produce of such land fit to be taken to market; (iii) in transporting such produce or livestock to market; and (iv) in maintaining agricultural implements and machinery in good repair and in providing for the upkeep of cattle for the purpose of such cultivation, process, or transport: Provided that in the case

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

The appeal is disposed of

10 INCOME-TAX’, (2000) 243 ITR 83W (SC) and ‘COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX VS. HERO AUTO LTD.’, (2012) 343 ITR 342 (DEL). 6. We have considered the submissions made by learned counsel on both the sides and have perused the record. Before proceeding further, it is apposite to take note of the relevant extract of Section

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

Bench: RAMESH RANGANATHAN,M.SATYANARAYANA MURTHY

section 11 on commercial principles after providing for allowance for normal depreciation and deduction thereof from gross income of the Trust. Date of Judgment 14-08-2018 I.T.A.No.346/2015 Commissioner of Income Tax & another Vs. M/s Academy of Liberal Education 8/21 In view of the aforestated Judgment of the Bombay High Court, we answer question No. 1 in the affirmative

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 COMMI.OF INCOME TAX,HYD. vs. VAIBHAV

Bench: C.V. BHASKAR REDDY,UJJAL BHUYAN

depreciation of earlier )tars, the income of 5 us the assessee was quantified at Rs. 22,61,520.00. It is this order of the Tribunal, nhich is under impugnment in the two appeals before 10. In the appeal filed by the assessee 2.e., I.T.T.ANo .58 o{ 20a2, the substantial question of law raised is whether Tribunal could have quantified

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

Bench: RAMESH RANGANATHAN,M.SATYANARAYANA MURTHY

1 MANIPAL. ... RESPONDENT (By Sri.T.SURYANARAYANA, ADV.) - - - THIS I.T.A. IS FILED UNDER SECTION 260-A OF I.T. ACT, 1961 ARISING OUT OF ORDER DATED 9/10/2009 PASSED IN ITA No.1282/BANG/2007, FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2000-2001, PRAYING TO FORMULATE THE SUBSTANTIAL QUESTIONS OF LAW STATED THEREIN. ALLOW THE APPEAL AND SET ASIDE THE ORDERS PASSED BY THE ITAT BANGALORE IN ITA NO.1282/BANG/2007

Commissioner of Income Tax vs. Mohan Milk LIne Pvt Ltd

Bench: RAMESH RANGANATHAN,M.SATYANARAYANA MURTHY

depreciation has to be allowed in the subsequent year" and is not the above finding against law and perverse? 2. Whether, on the Tribunal is right in law in holding that "the second proviso to section 32(1)(ii) is to mean that 10

The Commissioner of Income Tax-1 vs. Harmahendar Singh Bagga

Bench: CHALLA KODANDA RAM,G.CHANDRAIAH

depreciation has to be allowed in the subsequent year" and is not the above finding against law and perverse? 2. Whether, on the Tribunal is right in law in holding that "the second proviso to section 32(1)(ii) is to mean that 10