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

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

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

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

11,434/-. The return was processed regular assessment was issued on 31.10.1996. During the course of assessment proceedings, the appellant company filed various detailed and submitted reply in response to the information called for by the AO from time to time. While replying to the detailed questionnaire, issued by the complete information of bifurcation of energy saving devices. Which

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

D, Green Fields, FuliakulamRoad'coimbatore*41045' ...RESpoNDENT/pETrroNER 2. Andhra Pradesh Gas Power Corporation Ltd, #201, 2nd Floor, Ivly Home Sarovar Plaza, Secretariat Road, Hyderabad, rep. by its Managing Director' ...RES'.NDENT/RE.'.NDENT 2. Andhra Pradesh Gas Power Corpn. Ltd., #201, 2nd Floor, My Home Sarovar Plaza, Secretariat Road Hyderabad- 500 063. ...RESPONDENT/RESPONDENT l.A. NO: 1 OF 200 S(WAMP

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

D G M E N T The assessee is a charitable trust having its office at Nagamangala Taluk, Tumakuru District. It has been in existence since 1973. 2. The Trust has got registered under Section 12A of the Act on 17.07.1974. It is running various educational institutions throughout the State of 3 Karnataka. During the financial year

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

Bench: RAMESH RANGANATHAN,M.SATYANARAYANA MURTHY

D. KARIA   Date : 17/02/2020   ORAL JUDGMENT   (PER : HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE J.B.PARDIWALA) 1. This Tax Appeal under Section 260A of the Income Tax Act, 1961, is at the instance of the Revenue and is directed against Page 1 of 24 C/TAXAP/273/2011                                                                                                 JUDGMENT the order passed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, 'A' Bench, Ahmedabad, dated 5th August 2010, in the ITA No.1835/Ahd/2010

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

depreciation is prescribed”. 8. It can also be said that the „right to carry on any business‟ has been recognized by the legislature as capital asset for the purposes of assessing and computing the capital gains as is clear from the reading of Section 55 (2) (a) of the Act, which is in the following terms:- (2) For the purposes

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

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

The appeals are dismissed

Bench: P.SAM KOSHY,NARSING RAO NANDIKONDA

depreciation. In the light of the aforesaid particulars, the Assessing - - 11 Authority held that the assessee has let out the buildings and also provides several amenities. The provision of amenities is governed by a separate agreement or separate rates in a common agreement at which such services are charged. Accordingly, the consideration in respect of these two transactions are distinct

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

D G M E N T Dr. S. Muralidhar, J.: 1. These are 11 appeals under 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

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

Appeals of the Revenue are dismissed

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

D G M E N T Dr. S. Muralidhar, J.: 1. These are 11 appeals under 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

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

D E R % 25.04.2012 Revenue in this appeal under Section 260A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (Act) impugns the order dated 17th June, 2011 passed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (tribunal) in the case of Imperial Fasteners Pvt. Ltd., the respondent-assessee. The appeal pertains to the assessment year 2006-07. 2. Having heard learned counsel

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

Bench: C.V. BHASKAR REDDY,UJJAL BHUYAN

11. We have been informed at the bar that Lakshmi Sugar Mills Co. Ltd. (supra) is still pending before the Supreme Court. 12. However, considering the fact that the present appeal ,.is of the _r'ear 2001 and more than 21 years have gone by since institution of the appeal, we are of the vieu' that

The Commissioner of Income Tax-V vs. Smt.R.Amala Devi

Bench: RAMESH RANGANATHAN,M.SATYANARAYANA MURTHY

1. This appeal under Section 260A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 [“the Act”] arises out of an order dated 22nd July, 2009 passed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Amritsar [“ITAT”] in ITA No.478(ASR)/2008 titled M/s Reshi Construction Co. v. The Income Tax Officer, Ward 4, Srinagar, whereby the appeal of the appellant-assessee against the order

Andhra PRadesh Pradesh Fibres Limited vs. Assistant commissioner of Income Tax

In the result, the order passed by the

Bench: V.V.S.RAO,SANJAY KUMAR

1) to the assessee. The assessing officer by an order dated 26.03.1999 passed an order of assessment and inter alia quantified the total taxable income at Rs.8,38,38,080/-. 100% Depreciation claimed by the assessee on pollution control equipment worth Rs.4,93,00,000/- was 6 disallowed and 80% interest on the amount advanced to Madhya Pradesh State Electricity