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

The appeals are dismissed

Bench: P.SAM KOSHY,SUDDALA CHALAPATHI RAO

9. On the strength of this Circular, it was contended that reduction of MAT credit prior to computation of interest under sections 234B and 234C is permissible only after 01.04.2007, that is, for assessment year 2007-2008 onwards. Since all these appeals relate to prior assessment years, MAT credit cannot be set off prior to the computation of interest under

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 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

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

depreciation on the interest capitalized against the assets, without appreciating that the assessee wrongly calculated the interest payable on the share application money refunded and that the interest incurred, related to assets acquired, was capitalized and therefore, cannot be allowed as revenue expenditure? 9. Though the third question of law revolves around the issue of revenue expenditure, the same

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

139 MNJ 94 DATED 5-1-1995. II. The First Party has offered to the Second Party or his nominees the Joint development rights of the above Survey Numbers which offer the Second Party has accepted in good faith and on the above representations of the First Party. 9 III. This MOU is being signed by the parties broadly setting