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 :-

13. The expression “assess” used in Section 147 of the Act, 1961 refers to a situation where assessment of income of an assessee for a particular year is, for the first time made by resorting to the provisions of Section 147 because the assessment had not been made in a regular manner under the Act. The expression “reassess” refers

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

Appeal is allowed

Bench: SANJAY KUMAR,GUDISEVA SHYAM PRASAD

13. Section 32(1) of the IT Act stipulates as follows: “32. Depreciation. (1) In respect of depreciation of— (i)buildings

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

13. The language of the sub-clause 'c' to Section 35(2B) is conspicuous and entirely different and wordings are clear and lucid. The language of Section 11(1), as noticed above, is distinguished and not worded in a similar manner. In Escorts Ltd. (supra), the SupremeCourt was consideringthe said specific provision and the wordings therein. While dealing with

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

depreciation loss of Rs. 114,47,28,440/-. The same was subsequently revised under section 154 at a loss of Rs. 114,46,13,711/- and further recomputed at Rs. 116,30,34,284/- after appeal effect . In another words the assessed figure at all stages in the case of the appellant company for A. Y. 1995-96 has been

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 (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

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

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-I vs. Ascend Telecom Infrastructure Private Limited

Bench: RAMESH RANGANATHAN,M.SATYANARAYANA MURTHY

depreciation if it is not allowed as necessary deduction for computing the income from the charitable institutions, then there is no way to preserve the corpus of the trust for deriving the income. The Board also appears to have understood the `income’ under section 11(1) in its commercial sense. The relevant portion of the Circular No.5XX-6 of 1968, dated

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

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

13. The Finance Act, 2003 made significant changes both with prospective and retrospective effect from the assessment year 2001-2002. The significant retrospective amendment was the one which was made in sub-section (6) of Section 10A. This subsection contained provisions for ensuring that an assessee who enjoys the tax holiday under Section 10A does not enjoy any other

THE COMMI.OF INCOME TAX,HYD. vs. VAIBHAV

Bench: C.V. BHASKAR REDDY,UJJAL BHUYAN

13,,A7393.C0 added by the assessing officer. Explanation fumished by the assessee was found to be not satisfactory. Accordingly, qT(A) uide the order dated 27.02.2CC1 directed the assessing officer to treat Rs.2,74,36,5A2.A0 as u.rexplained investment and to add the same to the income of the assessee. 8. Insofar the other two additions

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

The appeals are dismissed

Bench: P.SAM KOSHY,NARSING RAO NANDIKONDA

13. Section 80IA of the Act was inserted by the Finance Act 2/1991 with effect from 01.04.1991. and later on amended by the Finance Act, 1992 w.e.f. 1.4.1993. There were several amendments. However, the present Section 80IA was substituted by Finance Act, 1999 w.e.f. 1.4.2000. Deduction in respect of profits and gains from industrial undertakings reads as under: [Deductions

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 in respect of those assets cannot be taken into account. This view of the Tribunal has been confirmed by the Bombay High Court in the above judgment. Therefore, 9 the first substantial question of law held in favour of the assessee and against the Revenue. 9. Hence, following the aforesaid judgments, the first substantial question of law is answered

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

The appeal is disposed of

1) The Commissioner may call for and examine the record of any proceeding under this Act, and if he considers that any order passed therein by the Assessing Officer is erroneous in so far as it is prejudicial to the interests of the revenue, he, may, after giving the assessee an opportunity of being heard and after making or causing

The Commissioner of Income Tax-III vs. Smt.Anitha Sanghi

Bench: RAMESH RANGANATHAN,M.SATYANARAYANA MURTHY

depreciation on securities (iv) floating rate notes of London branch (v) DICGC loans (vi) suits filed accounts (vii) miscellaneous provision cannot be added back in accordance with Explanation of Section 115JA of the Act in the light of the judgment of the Apex court in H.C.L. Comnet when there is diminution in the value of assets as contended

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