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

Bench: RAMESH RANGANATHAN,M.SATYANARAYANA MURTHY

3 TAX, CIRCLE-1, UDUPI, IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE AND EQUITY & ETC. THESE I.T.As. COMING ON FOR HEARING, THIS DAY, ALOK ARADHE J., DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: JUDGMENT These appeals under Section 260-A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’, for short) have been filed by the revenue. ITA No.97/2010 was admitted

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

Commissioner of Income Tax vs. Mohan Milk Line Pvt Ltd

The appeals are allowed only to the aforesaid

Bench: RAMESH RANGANATHAN,M.SATYANARAYANA MURTHY

depreciation of earlier years while computing the deduction u/s.10A by holding that it did not find any infirmity of the order passed by the appellate Commissioner without appreciating that the relief allowed is a deduction and not an exclusion from the total income which is also clarified by the board’s circular No.7/DV/2013? 2. Whether the Tribunal is the grounds

The Commissioner of Income Tax IV vs. M/s. Nav Bharat Enterprises Limited

depreciation of Rs.17.06,58,039/- on software imported even though the assessing authority had rightly disallowed the expenditure under section 40(a)(i) of IT Act as the assessee had failed to comply with the provisions of section 195 while making payments to the vendors? (3) Whether on the facts and circumstances of the case, the tribunal is right

M/s. CCL Products (India) Ltd., vs. The Commissioner of Income Tax -1

In the result, the appeals are dismissed

depreciation against the total income for computing deduction u/s.10A of the Act, was contrary to the provisions of section 10A and hence the order of assessment was erroneous and prejudicial to the interest of the revenue and hence invoking of section 263 was in accordance with law? 5 3

Commissioner of IncomeTax-II, vs. M/S RK Hair Products Pvt Limited,

In the result, the appeals are dismissed

depreciation against the total income for computing deduction u/s.10A of the Act, was contrary to the provisions of section 10A and hence the order of assessment was erroneous and prejudicial to the interest of the revenue and hence invoking of section 263 was in accordance with law? 5 3

THE PRL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX [CENTRAL] HYDERABAD vs. M/S SREE NAGENDRA CONSTRUCTIONS, KHAMMAM

In the result, appeal stands dismissed

Bench: This

3. These substantial questions of law are covered by ITA No.684/2015. This Court in ITA No.684/2015 has held thus:- “Thus, in the light of these judgments and in terms of the Companies Act, 1956, debenture includes debenture shares and the bonds being interest bearing instruments which represent a loan, FCCB bonds are instruments issued to investors for raising funds which