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

The appeals are dismissed

Bench: P.SAM KOSHY,SUDDALA CHALAPATHI RAO

depreciation. The rate of minimum tax was kept at a modest figure deeming 30 per cent of book profits as total income. This modest amount is likely to go down further with the downward revision of corporate tax rate to 35 per cent and abolition of surcharge. xxxx xxxx xxxx xxxx 45.4 The Act also inserts a new section 115JAA

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

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

Bench: RAMESH RANGANATHAN,M.SATYANARAYANA MURTHY

139 or in response to a notice issued under sub-section (1) of section 142 or section 148 or to disclose fully and truly all material facts necessary for his assessment, for that assessment year: Provided further that nothing contained in the first proviso shall apply in a case where any income in relation to any asset (including financial interest

The Comissioner of Income Tax III, vs. Smt. Shanti Singh,

Bench: RAMESH RANGANATHAN,M.SATYANARAYANA MURTHY

139 has not e relating to such incom the books of account a in the normal course search or requisition r (e) where any order of se sub-section (4) of sect order; (f) where an assessment o made earlier under c the basis of such asses Explanation. For the purposes income,- (a) the total income

J.ADITYA RAO, REP.BY GPA HOLDER vs. THE ASST.CODMMISSINER OF INCOME TAX,HYD

Bench: C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY,T.AMARNATH GOUD

depreciation made vide its letter dated 18.2.`1997 in the course of assessment proceedings, only on the ground that no revised return was filed under section 139

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

Bench: RAMESH RANGANATHAN,M.SATYANARAYANA MURTHY

depreciation of assets in dispute. It is argued that the explanation of assessee that he had previously acquired the assets on hire basis in order to run the business smoothly and to save cost, which were later on acquired by the ITA No.15/2009 6 assessee was rightly not accepted by the Assessing Officer as also by both the appellate authorities

THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-IV vs. M/S QUALITY CARE INDIA LTD

Bench: A.SHANKAR NARAYANA,V RAMASUBRAMANIAN

139 or that there was a failure on the part of the assessee to respond to a notice issued under Section 142(1) or Section 148 or that there was a failure on the part of the assessee to disclose fully and truly all material facts necessary for the assessment year. 11. The case on hand, even according

COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-II vs. M/S.TRANSPORT CORPORATION OF INDIA

In the result, we set aside the assessment orders, except to

Bench: P.SAM KOSHY,LAXMI NARAYANA ALISHETTY

139, 140 and 142 of 2014 -------------------------------------------------- DATED THIS THE 19th DAY OF SEPTEMBER, 2014 JUDGMENT ANTONY DOMINIC , J . These are appeals filed by the assessee under the Income-tax Act, challenging the orders of the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals), Kochi and the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal, Kochi concerning the assessment years

Principal Commissioner of Income Tax - 5 vs. M/s Vijay Textiles Limited

The appeal is dismissed

Bench: RAMESH RANGANATHAN,M.SATYANARAYANA MURTHY

Section 110 of the Act, if an AOP is chargeable to tax at maximum marginal rate then the share of profits in the hands of the members is not chargeable to tax at all. 19. Now against the above contours of taxability of an AOP, we have to see the facts of the case before us. The first