Commissioner of Income Tax vs. Agricultural Market Committee

In the result we do not find any merit in the appeal

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

Section 37 of the Act. It was further held that ATMs are computers and therefore, assessee is eligible to depreciation of 60%. It was further held that even though the assessee had changed the method of revenue recognition, however, he is entitled to change the method of accounting as the same has no impact on the revenue. Accordingly, the appeal

Commissioner of Income Tax, vs. Agricultural Market Committee,

In the result, the appeal (ITA/70/2011) is allowed to the extent indicated

Bench: : The Hon’Ble Justice T.S. Sivagnanam & The Hon’Ble Justice Hiranmay Bhattacharyya Date : 20Th March, 2023 Appearance : Mr. C. Bhaskaran, Adv. Ms. Swapna Das, Adv. …For The Appellant. Mr. Aryak Dutt, Adv. …For The Respondent.. The Court : - This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Under Section 260A Of The Income Tax Act (The Act) Is Directed Against The Order Dated September 30, 2009 Passed By The Income Tax Appellate Tribunal “B” Bench, Kolkata In Ita No.2486/Kol/2007 For The Assessment Year 2003-2004. The Appeal Was Admitted On 18.03.2011 On The Following Substantial Questions Of Law:- “1. Whether The Tribunal Below, While Interpreting Section 36(1)(Viia)(A) Of The Income-Tax Act, 1961, Committed Substantial Error Of Law In Holding That Deduction Under The First Proviso Was Alternative To That Under Sub-Clause (A) & That No Deduction Under The First Proviso Was Allowable If Deduction Had Been Allowed Under Sub-Clause (A) Thereby Rejecting The Appellant’S

depreciation of investment, fraud and forgery, stationery wastage and tangible assets could not be allowed unless the same were for ascertained liability/expense ? We have heard Mr. C. Bhaskaran, learned counsel assisted by Ms. Swapna Das, learned advocate for the appellant/assessee and Mr. Aryak Dutt, learned standing counsel for the respondent/revenue. 3 The first substantial question of law is whether

The Commissioner of Income Tax- I vs. M/s. Avon Organics Limited

Bench: GODA RAGHURAM,M.S.RAMACHANDRA RAO

112 ITR 497(Bom), it has been observed:- “This interpretation put by this court upon the expression "set up" has been followed by the Madras High Court in the case of Ramaraju Surgical Cotton Mills Ltd. v. Commissioner of Wealth-tax [1962] 46 ITR 820.This is a case under the Wealth-tax Act and the expression " set up " came