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

142(1) respectively of the Act along with the questionnaire was issued dated 24th June, 2011. The Assessing Officer called upon the respondent-assessee to make good its case that the assessee company could be said to be constituted for charitable purpose within the meaning of Section 2(15) of the Act. To put it in other words, the respondent

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

Bench: RAMESH RANGANATHAN,M.SATYANARAYANA MURTHY

142 or section 148] but ot been made till the date of n, on the basis of the income rns; or filing a return of income has of income has been filed,- entries as recorded in the books other documents maintained in rse on or before the date of the isition where such entries result of loss for any previous

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

Bench: RAMESH RANGANATHAN,M.SATYANARAYANA MURTHY

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) : SUNIL 2025.11.07 13:52 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document -8- ITA-96-2012 (O&M) Provided that where an assessment under

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

Bench: A.SHANKAR NARAYANA,V RAMASUBRAMANIAN

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 to the stand taken by the Revenue, did not fall under the first two categories. According to the learned standing counsel

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 R.MUNDRY vs. A.VENKATESWARLU AND OTHERS

The appeal is allowed in the above terms with no

Bench: The Assessing Officer (Ao) & Claimed Depreciation Allowance On The Increased Cost Of The Plant & Machinery Due To Exchange Fluctuations. The Ao In The Assessment Order Dated 31St March 1997 Rejected The Above Claim.

depreciation by the Assessee is allowable under Section 43A of the Income Tax Act, 1961?” 3. The brief facts are that the Appellant-Assessee filed its return of income for the AY 1994-95. Pursuant to a notice issued under Sections 142 (1