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

Bench: RAMESH RANGANATHAN,M.SATYANARAYANA MURTHY

3. As stated above, the first question which requires consideration by this court is : whether depreciation was allowable on the assets, the cost of which has been fully allowed as application of income under section 11

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 - IV vs. M/s. Mekins Agro Product (P) Ltd.

3. The contention ofRevenue isthat depreciation allowed on capital assets cannot be treated as application of income under the said clause. In case depreciation was allowed and treated as application of income, then the assessee would be entitled to double deduction as purchase or acquisition of capital assets for consideration was also treated as application of income. It is submitted

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

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

3. The Assessee filed its return of income on 31.10.2006 admitting a total income of Rs.nil. The return of Income was processed under Section 143(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

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

The appeals are dismissed

Bench: P.SAM KOSHY,SUDDALA CHALAPATHI RAO

3. All the appeals are in respect of assessment years prior to the amendments to Explanation 1 after section 234B(1) and to the Explanation after section 234C(1) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as ―the said Act‖) by virtue of the Finance Act, 2006, w.e.f. 01.04.2007. According to the learned counsel for the appellant/revenue, after

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

Bench: RAMESH RANGANATHAN,M.SATYANARAYANA MURTHY

3 of 24 C/TAXAP/273/2011                                                                                                 JUDGMENT fact that the said organization was collecting rent for providing the space at trade, fair and exhibitions and though was receiving income by way of sale of tickets and income from tickets and sale in Pragati Maidan etc., after considering the various decisions of the Hon'ble Supreme Court as well as decisions

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

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, ADV.) - - - THIS ITA IS FILED UNDER SECTION 260-A OF I.T. ACT, 1961 ARISING OUT OF ORDER DATED 25.02.2011 PASSED

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

depreciation 8 and notional interest, which would amount to setting aside the entire order of assessment. It was further held that since, there was no order to pass a fresh order of assessment, therefore, the order giving effect to the findings of the tribunal was not barred by limitation under Section 153(2A) of the Act. 5. The aforesaid order

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

Appeal is allowed

Bench: SANJAY KUMAR,GUDISEVA SHYAM PRASAD

3 to section 32(1) says that 'block of assets' shall mean inter alia, intangible assets being trade mark. In other words, the deduction for the acquisition of trade mark should be under section 32. IT rules allow depreciation @ 25% on 'intangible assets'. Therefore deduction can be allowed on trademarks (which is intangible asset according to section 32) only under

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

11 of 57 according to the Assessee, it was not required to have its accounts audited in the tax jurisdiction where the Assessee is a resident, namely, Delaware, USA. Thereafter, on 18th December, 2006, the AO passed an assessment order under Section 143(3)/147 of the Act. Assessment Order dated 18th December, 2006 14. The AO observed that

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

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

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

3) to (6) of sub-section 10B, more particularly, clause (ii) of sub-section (6) and ratio laid down by the Hon’ble Karnataka High Court and ITAT, Chennai, the losses of eligible units are to be set off against the profits of such eligible units in the subsequent years.‖ ITA 386/2013 Page 4 5. The ITAT, which the assessee

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

The appeal is disposed of

3. Being aggrieved, the assessee filed an appeal before the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Tribunal’, for short). The Tribunal vide order dated 29.06.2012 inter alia held that invocation of Section 263 of the Act on the ground of lack of enquiry with regard to claim of deduction made by the assessee under Section 80IB

THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-IV vs. M/S QUALITY CARE INDIA LTD

Bench: A.SHANKAR NARAYANA,V RAMASUBRAMANIAN

3) Whether on facts and circumstances of the case, the Hon’ble ITAT is justified in upholding the order of the CIT(A) deleting the disallowance made by the AO, on the ground that the assessee has not claimed any depreciation on the interest capitalized against the assets, without appreciating that the assessee wrongly calculated the interest payable

Principal Commissioner of Income Tax - 5 vs. M/s Vijay Textiles Limited

The appeal is dismissed

Bench: RAMESH RANGANATHAN,M.SATYANARAYANA MURTHY

Section 110 of the Act, if an AOP is chargeable to tax at maximum marginal rate then the share of profits in the hands of the members is not chargeable to tax at all. 19. Now against the above contours of taxability of an AOP, we have to see the facts of the case before us. The first

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

3. The assessee thereupon filed an appeal before the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) who by an order dated 26.02.2013 affirmed by the order passed by the Assessing Officer. The assessee thereupon filed an appeal before the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal 5 (hereinafter referred to as 'the tribunal' for short). The tribunal by order dated 11.04.2014 inter alia held that