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

Bench: RAMESH RANGANATHAN,M.SATYANARAYANA MURTHY

11(1)(a) of the Income Tax Act. The court rejected the argument on behalf of the revenue that section 32 of the Income Tax Act was the only section granting benefit of deduction on account of depreciation

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 4,07,88,644 1

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

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

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

1)(c) on account of inaccurate particulars furnished by assessee in original return and detected by the Assessing Officer during scrutiny u/s 143(3)?” 3. The counsel for the appellant and the assessee has taken us to the judgment of ITAT which held as under:- We have heard rival submissions and considered them carefully. After considering the submissions and perusing

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

Appeal is allowed

Bench: SANJAY KUMAR,GUDISEVA SHYAM PRASAD

11 trademark to sell their products as well as claimed depreciation of Rs.16,55,938/-. The AO merely concluded that since the appellant cannot claim both the deduction of Rs.25,23,333/- as well as depreciation of Rs. 16,55,938/-, at least one of the claim has to be disallowed. Accordingly, the claim of depreciation was disallowed

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

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

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

1. THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX JSS TOWERS BSK III STAGE BANGALORE. 2. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX CIRCLE - 11(2) JSS TOWERS BSK III STAGE BANGALORE. ... APPELLANTS (BY SRI.K.V.ARAVIND, ADV.,) AND: M/S HEWLETT PACKARD INDIA SALES PVT. LTD. (FORMERLY COMPAQ COMPUTERS INDIA P. LTD.) NO.24, SALARPURIA ARENA HOSUR MAIN ROAD ADUGODI BANGALORE - 560 030. ... RESPONDENT (BY SRI.T.SURYANARAYANA

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

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

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

11 substance of the provisions of these sub-sections remained the same. The effect was that from 1st April, 2001 (assessment year 2001- 2002) once the tax holiday ended, the bar or prohibition on enjoying other tax benefits such as carry forward and set off of laws (sic) and unabsorbed depreciation etc. came into force. 14. The rationale behind both

THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-III vs. M/S. SOMA ENTERPRISES LTD

The appeal is disposed off accordingly

Bench: The Hon'Ble Mr. Justice Ravi Malimath

1) by the Income Tax Officer, Mandya. The case was selected for scrutiny in accordance with the scrutiny guidelines issued by the Central Board of Direct Taxes. Notice under Section 143(2) was issued and served on the assessee on 23.08.2007. In response to the same, the Internal Auditor has appeared and represented the case and produced various documents

The Commissioner of Income Tax (Central) vs. Hetero Labs Ltd

In the result, we do not find any merit in this

Bench: RAMESH RANGANATHAN,M.SATYANARAYANA MURTHY

1.—For the purposes of this section, “book profit” means the net profit as shown in the profit and loss account for the relevant previous year prepared under sub- section (2), as increased by— (a) the amount of income-tax paid or payable, and the provision therefor; or (b) the amounts carried to any reserves, by whatever name called, other

COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-III, HYD vs. M/S. SUJANA METALS LTD, HYD

Bench: P.SAM KOSHY,NARSING RAO NANDIKONDA

11): “block of assets” means a group of assets falling within a class of assets comprising- (a) ….. (b) Intangible assets, being know-how, patents, copyrights, trade-marks, licences, franchises or any other business or commercial rights of similar nature, in respect of which the same percentage of depreciation is prescribed”. 8. It can also be said that the „right

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-IV vs. M/s Pokarna Limited

The appeals are dismissed

Bench: P.SAM KOSHY,NARSING RAO NANDIKONDA

11(3), C.R.Building, - - 6 Queens Road, Bangalore. ...APPELLANTS (By Sri. K.V.Aravind, Adv.) AND : M/s.Golflink Software Park Pvt. Ltd., 1st Floor, Embassy Point, 150, Infantry Road, Bangalore – 560 001. …RESPONDENT (By Sri.Chythanya K.K., Adv.) . . . . This I.T.A. is filed under Section 260A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 praying to (i) formulate the substantial questions of law stated therein, (ii) allow