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

8 of 96 C/TAXAP/627/2015 JUDGMENT Effluent Treatment Charges Other income 1,06,75,007 79,01,791 48,14,193 4,75,780 Total Income 7,34,51,335 6,85,28,964 5,64,22,221 3,97,33,149 Expenditure Operating Expenses

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

8. From bare reading of Section 3 of the Act of 1944 i.e. the charging Section, it is clear that agricultural income tax shall be charged for each financial year in accordance with and subject to the provisions of the Act, at the rate or rates specified in the schedule in respect of the total agricultural income of the previous

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-I vs. Ascend Telecom Infrastructure Private Limited

Bench: RAMESH RANGANATHAN,M.SATYANARAYANA MURTHY

8 to 10 thereof has held as under : - Date of Judgment 14-08-2018 I.T.A.No.346/2015 Commissioner of Income Tax & another Vs. M/s Academy of Liberal Education 14/21 Xxxxxxx ……. 5.3.3 Further, the CBDT Circular No.5-P (LXX)-6 of 1968 cited by the assessee makes it clear that income should be understood in its commercial sense : in the case of trusts

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

8. Section 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

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

Appeal is allowed

Bench: SANJAY KUMAR,GUDISEVA SHYAM PRASAD

8 3.1 The assessee was asked to justify this claim in the light of the provisions of section 32, which allow depreciation at 25% on trademarks. In reply, the assessee states in its letter dated 14.10.2008 that as the right to use the trademarks is restricted to three years, the deduction is claimed under section 37, for a period

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

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. M/s. Mekins Agro Product (P) Ltd.

8. property, interest on securities, capital gains, or other sources, the word 'income' should be understood in its commercial sense, i.e., book income, after adding back any appropriations or applications thereof towards the purpose of the trust or otherwise, and also after adding back any debits made for capital expenditure incurred for the purposes of the trust or otherwise.lt should

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) 3 Rule 14 of the CENVAT Credit Rules, 2004 read with Section 11A of the Act, 1944. Further, penalty to the tune of `2,88,779/- under Section 11 AC of the Act, 1944 read with Rule 15 (2) of the CENVAT Credit

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

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

8 of 10 Analysis and Findings 10. Section 147, to the extent it is relevant, is reproduced below: "147. - Income Escaping Assessment - If the Assessing Officer has reason to believe that any income chargeable to tax has escaped assessment for any assessment year, he may, subject to the provisions of sections 148 to 153, assess or reassess such income

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

The appeals are dismissed

Bench: P.SAM KOSHY,NARSING RAO NANDIKONDA

8 assessee in response to the notice issued appeared on 13.12.2007 and 14.12.2007 and filed written submissions. The assessee claimed that they are in the business of providing comprehensive facilities to IT Industry. Such facilities include provision for specially furnished buildings, special electrical connections, and special arrangement for antennae and dish, good net connectivity for transmission of data and special

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

The appeals are dismissed

Bench: P.SAM KOSHY,SUDDALA CHALAPATHI RAO

8. In this context, the learned counsel for the revenue drew our attention to Circular No.14/2006 which contains the ―Explanatory Notes on provisions relating to Direct Taxes‖ under the Finance Act, 2006. The relevant portions of the said circular are as under:- “38. Credit for payment of Minimum Alternate Tax (MAT) and tax paid in a country or specified territory

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

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

Commissioner of Income Tax vs. Mohan Milk Line Pvt Ltd

The appeals are allowed only to the aforesaid

Bench: RAMESH RANGANATHAN,M.SATYANARAYANA MURTHY

depreciation and the adjustment against the income of the respective assessment year, was at large to be considered. The peculiar circumstances in the case are that in the earlier round of litigation, the question - 8 - of entitlement was considered and further, the computation thereof was indirectly deemed as concluded. The order of the CIT (Appeals) can be considered in light

Commissioner of Income Tax [TDS] vs. The Executive Engineer

In the result, these appeals fail and are

Bench: RAMESH RANGANATHAN,M.SEETHARAMA MURTI

section 115 JB of Act? 8. Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal erred in allowing the relief with regard to losses which were due to operational mistakes, related mainly to ATM transactions of customer and that loss is essential capital loss incurred for operational purposes? 9. Whether on the facts

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

8 Supreme Court reported in the case of COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX VS. RAJASTAN AND GUJRATI CHARITABLE FOUNDATION reported in (2018) 402 ITR 441 (SC). Therein, the Hon’ble Supreme Court considered a batch of cases on the very same question of law, which also arose in the case of very same Assessee herein. Therein, the question of law considered