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

23 ITR 230 at 230 in the following words : " The mercantile system of accounting or what is otherwise known as the double entry system is opposed to the cash system ofbook keeping under which a record is kept of actual cash receipts and actual cash payments, entries being made only when money is actually collected or disbursed. That system brings

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

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 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

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

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

23. PW-12, S.P. Sahu Assistant Grade-III has proved the document Ex.P/39 which is document with respect to the salary of the appellant for the period in between 07.04.1982 to 08.08.1983. 24. PW-13, Parmanand Sahu, has proved the posting order of the appellant Ex.P/14. 25. PW-14, Deepak Kumar is the witness to the sale deed which

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

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

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

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.Ideal Industrial Explosives Ltd

Bench: RAMESH RANGANATHAN,M.SATYANARAYANA MURTHY

23, 58, 65, 81, 82, 85, 88, 97, 100 and 104 of 2010 J U D G M E N T K.Vinod Chandran, J. The above appeals are all by the Department challenging various orders of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal. For the assessment year 1999- 2000, there are two appeals filed - ITA Nos.3/2010 and 23/2010 - arising from orders under

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

Commissioner of Income Tax vs. Sri P.Sarveswara Rao

Appeals are partly allowed, in view of the

Bench: RAMESH RANGANATHAN,M.SATYANARAYANA MURTHY

c) The assessee‟s assertion that it is entitled to claim deduction in view of subsidy by virtue of notifications issued by the State a Govt. does not help its case as, provisions of Sec.43- B are clear and non ambiguous as well as overriding in nature. (d) The assessee‟s reference to several judgements of the High Courts

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

Section 143(3)/147 of the Act. Assessment Order dated 18th December, 2006 14. The AO observed that the Assessee had not booked any establishment cost, depreciation or any other indirect costs in its accounts. Further, the Assessee had also not showed any source of funds. The AO noted that the equipment stated to have been supplied by the Assessee

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-V vs. Smt.R.Amala Devi

Bench: RAMESH RANGANATHAN,M.SATYANARAYANA MURTHY

depreciation of assets in dispute. It is argued that the explanation of assessee that he had previously acquired the assets on hire basis in order to run the business smoothly and to save cost, which were later on acquired by the ITA No.15/2009 6 assessee was rightly not accepted by the Assessing Officer as also by both the appellate authorities

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

section 154? (ii) Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case the Appellate Tribunal was right in law in sustaining the order of rectification passed by the Assessing Officer on 16.10.2008 when the CIT(A) had already recorded a fining that the appellant had continued its business during the year and no mistake was apparent from record