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 :-

Section 43B of the Act, 1961. However, the assessing officer accepted the income from leasing of the hotel as income under the head “profits and gains from business and profession” and allowed depreciation restricting it to 50% of the claimed amount i.e. 50% of Rs.1,14

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

Bench: RAMESH RANGANATHAN,M.SATYANARAYANA MURTHY

Depreciation under Section 32 of the Act is concerned, the controversy is no longer res integra, having been settled by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of ‘Commissioner of Income Tax-III, Pune v. Rajasthan & Gujarati Charitable Foundation Poona’ [2018] 89 taxmann.com 127 [SC], by which Date of Judgment 14

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

The appeals are dismissed

Bench: P.SAM KOSHY,NARSING RAO NANDIKONDA

Section 14, which are mutually exclusive and determine the heads under which the income is to be assessed. The objects in the memorandum of the company cannot determine the heads of income under which the income is to be taxed. The lease rental income from any property of which an assessee is a beneficial owner shall be liable

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

PROGREESIVE CONSTRUCTIONS LIMITED vs. JT. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX

Bench: C.V. BHASKAR REDDY,UJJAL BHUYAN

depreciation on tmc[s. Thereafter, uide the assessmenr order dated 31.03.1997 passed under Section 143(3) read with Section 1a8(sz;) o[ the Act, assessing officer computed t zol trn ltz 5 the total incor,re of the assessee at Rs.2,16,89,170.00. Flowever, after adjustmerrt of the refund for earlier assessment y3ars, the amount payabl,: bythe assessee

The Commissioner of Income Tax - IV vs. M/s. Mekins Agro Product (P) Ltd.

depreciation should be allowed again on the same asset. 14. From the year 1984 onwards, there have been a number of decisions of various High Courts taking a similar and identical view, as that ofSociety ofthe Sisters ofSt Anne (supra). These are as under:- Income Tax vs. Market Committee, Pipli (2011) 330 ITR 16 (P&H), Income Tax vs. Tiny

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

Appeal is allowed

Bench: SANJAY KUMAR,GUDISEVA SHYAM PRASAD

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 vs. Agricultral Market Committee,

Appeal is dismissed

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

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 Rules, 2004 was imposed in Order-in-Original by the Assistant Commissioner on 26/31.12.2007. 6. The appellant preferred appeal

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 vs. Dr. T.Ravi Kumar

The appeal is disposed of

14 of the Act. It is also pointed out that the order of assessment was passed by the Assessing Officer with due application of mind and therefore, the Director of Income Tax (Exemption) grossly erred in invoking Section 263 of the Act in the fact situation of the case. It is also argued that the order of the Assessing Officer

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

Bench: A.SHANKAR NARAYANA,V RAMASUBRAMANIAN

14. Therefore, this is not a case of normal assessment, which has gone on in a routine manner, without any suspicion in the eyes of the Assessing Officer. This is a case where a scrutiny assessment was made, after which, a search and seizure operation was conducted and, thereafter, the assessment was again completed under Section 143(3) r/w Section

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

Commissioner of Income Tax vs. Sri P.Sarveswara Rao

Appeals are partly allowed, in view of the

Bench: RAMESH RANGANATHAN,M.SATYANARAYANA MURTHY

depreciation and not the grant of deduction in respect of Sales-tax collections which had not been paid in accordance with the provisions of sec.43-B of the IT Act. (e) No objection on the issue whether the assessee‟s industrial undertaking was set up in a backward area, notified by the Central Govt. for the purpose of benefit under provisions

The Commissioner of Income Tax V vs. Smt. Ch. Uma

14) is not a word of art but a word of commercial implication. The bottom line is the availability of assets, activities carried out for exploiting the assets and that the assessee is not a mere onlooker in the activities of the company or a passive recipient of rent for utilization of facilities. 18. Applying the above ratio

Commissioner of Income Tax vs. M/s Ch.Veeraju AND co.

14) is not a word of art but a word of commercial implication. The bottom line is the availability of assets, activities carried out for exploiting the assets and that the assessee is not a mere onlooker in the activities of the company or a passive recipient of rent for utilization of facilities. 18. Applying the above ratio

Commissioner of Income Tax - VI vs. M/s. S.P. Steels

14) is not a word of art but a word of commercial implication. The bottom line is the availability of assets, activities carried out for exploiting the assets and that the assessee is not a mere onlooker in the activities of the company or a passive recipient of rent for utilization of facilities. 18. Applying the above ratio

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

depreciation. If any amount referred to in clauses (a) to (g) is debited to the profit and loss account, and as reduced by- (i) the amount withdrawn from any reserves or provision (excluding a reserve created before the 1st day of April, 1997 otherwise than by way of a debit to the profit and loss account), if any such amount