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

5. "Senior counsel, Sri A. K. J. Nambiar, a;ppearing for the assessee, submitted that the assessee has been filing income-tax returns for several years including the assessment year 2005-06, and disallowance is made only for this year. Since business income has to be as stated in section 29 by granting all deductions provided under sections

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

depreciation, etc. The mandate of these sub-sections is that all such allowances and reliefs would be deemed to have been exhausted during the tax holiday period itself and no part thereof would survive for consideration after the tax holiday period. The amendment made by the Finance Act, 2003 to sub-section (6) with retrospective effect from 01.04.2001 made

Dr.V.Suryanarayana Reddy vs. The Asst. Commissioner of Income Tax

depreciation : 11. Section 7 of the Act as aforequoted provides for computation to tax and allowances under the head “Agricultural Income from Agriculture” derived from land referred to in Section 2(n)(b) of the Act of 1944. It is a general provision. Section 7A inserted by the State Legislature in the year 1980, has been made specifically applicable

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

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

depreciation claimed by the assessee in respect of the buildings amounting to Rs.4,92,10,011/- which was already allowed in the earlier assessment years, was disallowed for the purpose of computing exemption under Section 11 of the Act. 5

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

Bench: RAMESH RANGANATHAN,M.SATYANARAYANA MURTHY

5 of 24 C/TAXAP/273/2011                                                                                                 JUDGMENT which are carrying on regular business from the scope of charitable purpose. The purpose of introducing the proviso to Section 2(15) of the Act can be understood from the Budget Speech of the Finance Minister while introducing the Finance Bill 2008. The relevant extract to the Speech is as under : Charitable purpose includes relief

COMM.OF INCOMETAX AP I HYD vs. M/S.DIAMOND HATCHERIES P.LTD HYD

11 of the Act. On appeal by the assessee, the CIT(A) decided the issue in favour of the assessee but while giving effect to the orders of the CIT(A), the Assessing Officer allowed deduction under Sections 80I and 32AB of the Act for the assessment years 1987-88 and 1988-89 and while computing the quantum of deduction

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

The appeal is disposed of

5. On the other hand, learned counsel for the assessee submitted that since, the assessee does not fall within scope and ambit of Section 11(1)(a) of the 8 Act, the income of the assessee has to be computed in accordance with other provisions of the Act. It is further submitted that total income of the assessee

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

Bench: P.SAM KOSHY,NARSING RAO NANDIKONDA

5. It is under these circumstances, the Revenue has preferred the present appeal under Section 260-A of the Act. 6. After hearing the counsel for the parties and going through the orders of the authorities below, we are of the opinion that the view taken by the CIT (A) as well as ITAT is without any blemish

COMR. OF IT HYD vs. M/S NEERAJ PETRO CHEMICALS LTD HYD

The appeal is partly allowed

depreciation in respect of guest house maintained by the assessee? (C) Whether misc. income amounting to Rs.577.48 Lacs and processing charges amounting to Rs.171.37 lacs, being part and parcel of assessee’s business income and required to be included in the total turnover, the Tribunal was justified in excluding the same for the purposes of computation of deduction u/s.80HHC

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

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

The appeals are dismissed

Bench: P.SAM KOSHY,SUDDALA CHALAPATHI RAO

5. Broadly speaking, these were the submissions of the learned counsel on both sides. However, before we embark upon a discussion of the issues at hand we feel that it would be appropriate if the contentions of the learned counsel are set out in somewhat greater detail. It was submitted on behalf of the appellant/revenue that section 234B provides

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

5,12700/- was expenditure in its construction and after deducting 30 % of depreciation, cost of the construction was comes to Rs. 3,59,000/- and he proved the valuation report Ex.P/78. He also proved the document Ex.P/79 and Ex.P/80 and he also opined that at the time of valuation of the house it comes to Rs. 4,10,130/- after

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

5. On the other hand, learned counsel for the revenue submitted that even though assessee has claimed that the entire amount was claimed as 8 expenditure on accrual basis, however, no provision was created and therefore, no adjustment was made in view of Clause (c) to Explanation 1 to Section 115JB of the Act. It is also argued that unless

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

Commissioner of Income Tax vs. Agricultral Market Committee,

Appeal is dismissed

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

5. Since it appeared that the CENVAT Credit amounting to `2,88,779/- (Rupees Two Lac Eighty Eight Thousand Seven Hundred and Seventy Nine Only) taken in respect of the capital goods was availed of wrongly in violation of the provisions of Rule 4 (4) of the CENVAT Credit Rules, 2004/2002 and that the said wrong availment could

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

Appeal is allowed

Bench: SANJAY KUMAR,GUDISEVA SHYAM PRASAD

5 Hereinafter referred to as the ‘Commissioner’ 6 9. Learned Senior Counsel for the assessee contends that the deduction by the AO regarding the amount sought to be amortized in respect of the use of trademarks was rejected on the ground that the deduction is covered by Section 32(1) as well as under Section

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