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

The appeals are dismissed

Bench: P.SAM KOSHY,NARSING RAO NANDIKONDA

20 D.—Profits and gains of business or profession. E.—Capital gains. F.—Income from other sources. 10. Section 22 of the Act deals with income from House property which reads as under: Income from house property. 22. The annual value of property consisting of any buildings or lands appurtenant thereto of which the assessee is the owner, other than

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

Commissioner of Income Tax vs. Mohan Milk LIne Pvt Ltd

Bench: RAMESH RANGANATHAN,M.SATYANARAYANA MURTHY

section 32(1)(ii) is to mean that 10% should be allowed in the year in which the machinery is acquired and installed and the balance 10% has to be impliedly allowed in the subsequent year" and is not the above interpretation and approach against law and the intention of the legislature?” 4.1 The circumstances leading to the disagreement between

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

Bench: CHALLA KODANDA RAM,G.CHANDRAIAH

section 32(1)(ii) is to mean that 10% should be allowed in the year in which the machinery is acquired and installed and the balance 10% has to be impliedly allowed in the subsequent year" and is not the above interpretation and approach against law and the intention of the legislature?” 4.1 The circumstances leading to the disagreement between

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

depreciation of 20% after two years. In cross- examination he admitted that he has not attached any Government circular with respect to the valuation of the construction. He further stated that at the time of preparing the first report, he was not informed about the check period and when the check period was informed by the Lokayukta Police, he prepared

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

Bench: RAMESH RANGANATHAN,M.SATYANARAYANA MURTHY

depreciation exceeds the surplus as generated from holding coaching classes. In addition, the petitioner institute provides study material and other academic support such as facilities of a library without any material additional costs. The Supreme Court in the case of State of Andhra Pradesh v. H. Abdul Bakhi and Bros. (supra) held as under: The expression "business" though extensively used

The Commissioner of Income Tax-IV vs. Nekkanti Sea Foods Limited

The appeal is dismissed without any order as to costs

Bench: P.SAM KOSHY,NARSING RAO NANDIKONDA

Section 115JB of the Act. The Assessing Officer in the assessment order has recorded that the assessee had debited a sum of Rs.31,54,844/- in the computation of income as deferred revenue expense and 10% of the said amount was debited to the profit and loss account as deferred revenue expenditure. The assessee was accordingly asked to justify

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

20%. Accordingly, the assessee claims that the application of income would include Rs.10,000/- which is to be allowed as depreciation as to this extent, the asset purchased has depreciated. In other words, Rs.60,000/- is to be treated as application of money for the purpose of clause 'a' to Section v.. V 11(1). 6. Initially we were

The Pr. Commissioner of Income-tax vs. D.L.V. Sridhar

Bench: D.V.S.S.SOMAYAJULU,RAMESH RANGANATHAN

Depreciation claim of 50:50 ratio also appeared to him to be disproportionate and without any cogent basis. As regard Bad Debts claim also, as written off & reflected in the unallocated segment, the AO observed that the said amount represented the Date of the previous years, pertaining to its software operations and therefore, bad debt should have been allocated

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

Appeal is allowed

Bench: SANJAY KUMAR,GUDISEVA SHYAM PRASAD

10 (c)in the case of any block of assets,- (i)in respect of any previous year relevant to the assessment year commencing on the 1st day of April, 1988, the aggregate of the written down values of all the assets falling within that block of assets at the beginning of the previous year and adjusted,- (A)by the increase

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

depreciating value”, and that the PMS is supposed to “provide the skill and expertise to steer through the complex volatile and dynamic conditions of the market”. The order may be extracted in relevant part: “10. Under PMS a person deposits the money under the contract for a period normally not less one year. After depositing the money the investment

THE STATE BANK OF HYD. vs. THE JT.COMMI.SPL.RANGE IV HYD.

Bench: C.V. BHASKAR REDDY,UJJAL BHUYAN

20. At this stage, we may also refer to sub-section (4) of Section 26OA of the Act which says that the appeal shal1 be heard only on the question so formulated and the respondent shall at the hearing of the appeal, be allowed to argue that the case does not involve such question. As per the proviso, nothing

PROGREESIVE CONSTRUCTIONS LIMITED vs. JT. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX

Bench: C.V. BHASKAR REDDY,UJJAL BHUYAN

depreciation on tmc[s. Thereafter, uide the assessmenr order dated 31.03.1997 passed under Section 143(3) read with Section 1a8(sz;) o[ the Act, assessing officer computed t zol trn ltz 5 the total incor,re of the assessee at Rs.2,16,89,170.00. Flowever, after adjustmerrt of the refund for earlier assessment y3ars, the amount payabl,: bythe assessee

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

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

20% of the profits and gains in respect of the specified industrial undertaking may be a positive figure, however, large it may be. 9. We may also refer to the decision of the Hon'ble Rajasthan High Court in the case of CIT vs. Rajendra Textiles, 225 ITR 516 wherein it has been held that the special deduction under Section

THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX III, vs. M/S. SAVIJANA SEA FOODS PVT. LTD.,

Appeals of the Revenue are dismissed

Bench: J SREENIVAS RAO,ALOK ARADHE

Section 260-A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 („Act‟) of which 1 is by the Assessee and 10 are by the Revenue. Apart from the facts being similar, the questions of law too are common to many of the appeals. They are accordingly disposed of by this common judgment. Background facts 2. The Assessee is engaged to the business

Commissioner of Income Tax, vs. M/s. Kokivenkateswara Reddy AND others,

Appeals of the Revenue are dismissed

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

Section 260-A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 („Act‟) of which 1 is by the Assessee and 10 are by the Revenue. Apart from the facts being similar, the questions of law too are common to many of the appeals. They are accordingly disposed of by this common judgment. Background facts 2. The Assessee is engaged to the business

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

Bench: RAMESH RANGANATHAN,M.SATYANARAYANA MURTHY

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 SINGH 2024.11.14 14:36 I attest to the accuracy and authencity of this order/judgment ITA N 5. interpreted b considered b and relatable information a evidence whi officer has an relatable to s Therefore