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

Bench: RAMESH RANGANATHAN,M.SATYANARAYANA MURTHY

depreciation exceeds the surplus as generated from holding coaching classes. In addition, the petitioner institute provides study material and other academic support such as facilities of a library without any material additional costs. The Supreme Court in the case of State of Andhra Pradesh v. H. Abdul Bakhi and Bros. (supra) held as under: The expression "business" though extensively used

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

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 to a company or firm or other association of persons for computation of their agricultural income in accordance with the method of accounting regularly employed by such assessee for such computation

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-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

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

The appeals are dismissed

Bench: P.SAM KOSHY,SUDDALA CHALAPATHI RAO

13. It must be pointed out that this decision was in the context of section 115J, the question being – ―Whether interest under section 234B and section 234C is chargeable even in a case where tax liability arises only by applicability of section 115J ? ‖ The question was answered in the affirmative in favour of the revenue and against the assessee

The Commissioner of Income Tax-V vs. Smt.R.Amala Devi

Bench: RAMESH RANGANATHAN,M.SATYANARAYANA MURTHY

13,29,206 + 6,99,679). 4. Feeling dissatisfied and aggrieved by the assessment made by the Assessing Officer, the appellant filed an appeal before the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), Jammu [“CIT(A)”] raising a plea that the assessment order was framed in violation of the CBDT guidelines and, therefore, null and void. The CIT(A) confirmed the assessment

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

Bench: P.SAM KOSHY,NARSING RAO NANDIKONDA

depreciation is prescribed”. 8. It can also be said that the „right to carry on any business‟ has been recognized by the legislature as capital asset for the purposes of assessing and computing the capital gains as is clear from the reading of Section 55 (2) (a) of the Act, which is in the following terms:- (2) For the purposes

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

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

2(45) of the Income-tax Act defines total income as ―the total amount of income referred to in section 5, computed in the manner laid down in this Act‖. Section 4 provides for charge of income-tax. Section 5 defines the scope of total income. Section 5 (1) states that subject to the provisions of the Act, the total

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

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. Dr. T.Ravi Kumar

The appeal is disposed of

2. Facts leading to filing of this appeal briefly stated are that assessee is a Trust engaged in the business of construction and real estate activities and is registered under Section 12AA of the Act on 07.12.2007. The assessee filed the return of income for the Assessment year 2009-10 and declared total turnover to the tune of Rs.194.24 Crores

Commissioner of Income Tax vs. Mohan Milk Line Pvt Ltd

The appeals are allowed only to the aforesaid

Bench: RAMESH RANGANATHAN,M.SATYANARAYANA MURTHY

2. Whether the Tribunal is the grounds of the revenue on the issue of levy of interest u/s.234D is not maintainable without appreciating that the CIT(A) erred in admitting the ground of appeal in the appeal against the order of giving effect to the order of the ITAT when the CIT(A) himself had dismissed the ground

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

Bench: RAMESH RANGANATHAN,M.SATYANARAYANA MURTHY

2 is answered in the affirmative i.e., in favour of the assessee and against, the department. Date of Judgment 14-08-2018 I.T.A.No.346/2015 Commissioner of Income Tax & another Vs. M/s Academy of Liberal Education 10/21 After hearing learned counsel for the parties, we are of the opinion that the aforesaid view taken by the Bombay High Court correctly states

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

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

Commissioner of Income Tax vs. Agricultral Market Committee,

Appeal is dismissed

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

13:41 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CEA-60-2011 (O&M) 2 the same time, claimed depreciation of this part of value of capital goods which represents the amount of duty on such capital goods under Section

The Commissioner of Income tax III, vs. Biraj Kavar Galada

The appeals are disposed of

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 to Section 115JA of the Act in the light of the judgment of the Apex Court in H.C.L. Comnet where is diminution in the value of assets as contended by the assessee