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

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

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, machinery, plant or furniture, being tangible assets; (ii)know-how, patents, copyrights, trade marks, licences, franchises or any other business or commercial rights of similar nature, being intangible assets acquired on or after the 1st day of April

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

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

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

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

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 (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

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

c) accrues or arises to him outside India during such year. Chapter III provides for incomes which do not form part of total income and Chapter IV deals with computation of total income. Sections 10A and 10B of the Act were inserted in 1981 and 1988 respectively; they continued with some amendments till 31.03.2001. Section 10A as enacted by Finance

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 COMMI.OF INCOME TAX,HYD. vs. VAIBHAV

Bench: C.V. BHASKAR REDDY,UJJAL BHUYAN

C-entral), Hvderabad, (briefly'CIT($' hereinafter). In the course of appellate proceedings, CIT(A) agreed with the assessing oificer that the difference in stocls declared by the assessee to the bank and to the assessing officer represents undisclosed investment in stock It was noticed that there was substantial difference between the two disclosures and that the stock position declared

The Commissioner of Income Tax -V, vs. M/S Secunderabad Club

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

depreciation allowance or any other allowance, as the case may be, for the assessment year concerned (hereafter in this section and in sections 148 to 153 referred to as the relevant assessment year): Provided that where an assessment under sub-section (3) of section 148 or this section has been made for the relevant assessment year, no action shall

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-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

INCOME TAX BANGALORE vs. SHALINI BHUPAL

Appeal is dismissed

13-03-1992 the Assessing Officer inter alia held that deduction under Section 80-I could be allowed on the balance amount of income after it ITA 38/2000 Page 2 suffers a deduction under Section 80-HH. This view was affirmed by the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) who was of the opinion that both Sections i.e., Sections

The Commissioner of Income Tax-IV, vs. Mars TelecomSystems (P) Limited

Bench: RAMESH RANGANATHAN,M.SATYANARAYANA MURTHY

13:52 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document -8- ITA-96-2012 (O&M) Provided that where an assessment under sub-section (3) of section 143 or this section has been made for the relevant assessment year, no action shall be taken under this section after the expiry of four years from