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

Appeal is allowed

Bench: SANJAY KUMAR,GUDISEVA SHYAM PRASAD

23,333/- is disallowed and in its place, depreciation of Rs.6,30,864/- is allowed and difference amount of Rs.18,92,500/- is added back to the income declared.” (emphasis supplied) 9 12. It is forthcoming that it has been held that the deduction is required to be made under Section 32(1) of the IT Act. 13. Section

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 :-

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 of Law (i) 12. It is undisputed that the assessee filed original return as well as revised return of income much prior to the issuance

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

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

10-A of the Act. The STPI unit was engaged in the business of development and support of its parent company in US/sister concerns worldwide as well as their customers. Separate Books of accounts were maintained for the exempted and non-exempted units. 4. The respondent-assessee had declared exempt income of Rs. 1,48,89,090/- from the business

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

23,27,233/- for the respective years to be calculated after reducing the claim under Section 32AB of the Act in respect of those units being eligible whereas it should have been calculated separately as provided under Section GURBAX SINGH 2015.11.17 12:34 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document High Court Chandigarh ITA No.49

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

10 RAM BAGH AZAD MARKET ROHTAK ROAD NEW DELHI Respondent Through Mr. Ajay Vohra with Ms. Kavita Jha, Mr. Vaibhav Kulkami and Ms. Bhoomika Chaudhary, Advocates. CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJIV KHANNA HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJEEV SACHDEVA ORDER % 27.11.2013 CM No.14785/2013 (delav^ in ITA 449/2013 For the reasons stated in the apphcation, the appHcation is allowed and thedelay

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

Bench: C.V. BHASKAR REDDY,UJJAL BHUYAN

23. Let us now advert to Section 254 of tht: Acl rvhich deals rvith o ders of Appellate Tribunal. Siub :.e,::tion (2) of Section 254 tf the Act says that the Appellatr: l-ricunal may at any time within four years from the dat.e ol' the order u'ith a view o rectify any mistake apparent frrln

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

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

The appeals are dismissed

Bench: P.SAM KOSHY,SUDDALA CHALAPATHI RAO

10. Referring to the provisions of chapter XVII-C relating to advance tax, it was submitted by the learned counsel for the revenue that section 207 imposes the liability for payment of advance tax and that section 208 stipulates that the advance tax must be paid in the ITA Nos. 402/2005 & Others Page No.14 of 44 financial year itself. Section

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

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

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 Commissioner of Income Tax- I vs. M/s. Avon Organics Limited

Bench: GODA RAGHURAM,M.S.RAMACHANDRA RAO

23 Transportation charges 628284 24 Stationery 18375 25 Lease Line Charges 274331 26 Telephone Expenses 68182 27. Printing Charges 7350 28. Travelling Expenses International 7732 ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Total Expenses pertaining to April & May 04 5902448/- ” This break-up was noticed in the assessment order itself and is not disputed. 6. What is clearly noticeable is that the appellant-assessee had incurred substantial

Commissioner of Income Tax vs. Sri P.Sarveswara Rao

Appeals are partly allowed, in view of the

Bench: RAMESH RANGANATHAN,M.SATYANARAYANA MURTHY

depreciation and not the grant of deduction in respect of Sales-tax collections which had not been paid in accordance with the provisions of sec.43-B of the IT Act. (e) No objection on the issue whether the assessee‟s industrial undertaking was set up in a backward area, notified by the Central Govt. for the purpose of benefit under provisions

The Commissioner of Income tax III, vs. Biraj Kavar Galada

The appeals are disposed of

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 to Section 115JA of the Act in the light of the judgment of the Apex Court in H.C.L. Comnet where is diminution in the value of assets as contended by the assessee

Commissioner of Income Tax vs. Agricultural Market Committee

In the result we do not find any merit in the appeal

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

23,817/- was disallowed and added back and depreciation towards furniture and fitting at the rate of 15% was allowed. The assessing officer further held that the assessee has changed the revenue recognition method and therefore it is not possible to ascertain true and correct profit of the assessee for the accounting year in question. It was further held that

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

Bench: C.V. BHASKAR REDDY,UJJAL BHUYAN

23.l2.2OO5 passed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Hyderabad Ilench ts', Hyderabad (Tribunal) 1n I.T.A.No.44 1 lHvd/2OOO for the assessment year 1990-91. 3. From th: docket proceedings we find that on 26.06.2006 thr: appeal u,as admitted for hearing, but no substantial que stion of law was framed. I.T.T.A.No.232 of 2006 2 4 . However