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

Bench: RAMESH RANGANATHAN,M.SATYANARAYANA MURTHY

1. This appeal under Section 260A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 [“the Act”] arises out of an order dated 22nd July, 2009 passed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Amritsar [“ITAT”] in ITA No.478(ASR)/2008 titled M/s Reshi Construction Co. v. The Income Tax Officer, Ward 4, Srinagar, whereby the appeal of the appellant-assessee against the order

Commissioner of Income Tax (TDS), vs. M/s Country Club Inda Limited

Section 143(3)/147 of the Act. Assessment Order dated 18th December, 2006 14. The AO observed that the Assessee had not booked any establishment cost, depreciation or any other indirect costs in its accounts. Further, the Assessee had also not showed any source of funds. The AO noted that the equipment stated to have been supplied by the Assessee

Commissioner of Income Tax, Guntur. vs. Agricultural Market Committee, Narasaraopet.

In the result, we do not find any merit in this

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

depreciation under Section 32(1)(ii) of the Act in respect of intangible assets of Rs.9,07,25,000/- when the same is not identical, and is based on adhoc estimate basis and not on actual cost as per Section 3 43(1) of the Act? 2. Facts leading to filing of this appeal briefly stated are that the assessee

Commissioenr of Income Tax vs. Dr. T. Ravi Kumar

143(3) was determined at 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

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

Appeal is allowed

Bench: SANJAY KUMAR,GUDISEVA SHYAM PRASAD

143(3) of the IT Act for the first two years after acquiring the said rights i.e., for AYs 2003-04 and 2004-05. However, for AY 2005-06 and 2006-07 the proportionate deduction of a sum of `25,23,333/- and `18,92,500/- was claimed, which was disallowed by the Assessing Officer4, vide assessment orders dated

COMM OF INCOME TAX, HYD vs. M/S. BALAN NATURAL FOOD PRIVATE LTD., HYD

Bench: RAMESH RANGANATHAN,KONGARA VIJAYA LAKSHMI

depreciation on ‘Held to Maturity’ category investments even though the same is notional in nature and against the RBI guidelines for valuation of securities? 4. Whether on the facts and in the circumstances on the case, the Tribunal were right in law in holding that the assessee is eligible for deduction under section 36(1)(viii) of the Act even

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

Depreciation 1,05,72,696 1,10,86,334 1,26,18,427 1,39,66,450 Total Expenditure 4,81,29,896 4,75,41,722 5,01,63,902 3,88,21,912 Profit for the year 2,53,21,438 2,09,87,242 62,58,319 836236 Add Balance brought forward 4,07,88,644 1

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

143(3) r/w Section 153A. After completion of the assessment, the Assessing Officer reopened the assessment under Section 147 by issuing a notice under Section 148, on 31.03.2011. 5. The reason for reopening of the assessment was that while initiating proceedings under Section 147, an amount of Rs.4,73,75,000/- was identified to the assets acquired, which had been

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

1,49,18,516/- as income for the year under consideration. It was assessed under the provisions of Section 143(3) of the Act. The Assessing Officer (AO) during the assessment proceedings, noticed that: (i) The Assessee had a hundred per-cent export oriented undertaking (100% EOU) at Plot No.A-280 to 283, RIICO Industrial Area, Chopanki, Distt. Alwar (Rajasthan

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

Bench: RAMESH RANGANATHAN,M.SATYANARAYANA MURTHY

143 or section 144 been concluded "[prior to the nt of the search or the date of asis of such assessments; me have been filed under section e to a notice issued under sub- on 142 or section 148] but ot been made till the date of n, on the basis of the income rns; or filing a return

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

The appeals are dismissed

Bench: P.SAM KOSHY,NARSING RAO NANDIKONDA

1) of the Act on 28.08.2006. The case was selected for scrutiny by issue of notice under Section 143(2) dated 25.07.2006, which was duly served on the assessee Company. The - - 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

The Commissioner of Income Tax-III vs. Smt.Anitha Sanghi

Bench: RAMESH RANGANATHAN,M.SATYANARAYANA MURTHY

1 MANIPAL. ... RESPONDENT (By Sri.T.SURYANARAYANA, ADV.) - - - THIS I.T.A. IS FILED UNDER SECTION 260-A OF I.T. ACT, 1961 ARISING OUT OF ORDER DATED 9/10/2009 PASSED IN ITA No.1282/BANG/2007, FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2000-2001, PRAYING TO FORMULATE THE SUBSTANTIAL QUESTIONS OF LAW STATED THEREIN. ALLOW THE APPEAL AND SET ASIDE THE ORDERS PASSED BY THE ITAT BANGALORE IN ITA NO.1282/BANG/2007

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

143(2) was issued and served on the assessee on 23.08.2007. In response to the same, the Internal Auditor has appeared and represented the case and produced various documents and books of account for verification. 4. On the question of depreciation, the Trust had claimed deduction towards depreciation allowance 4 amounting to Rs.8,41,36,636/- which includes depreciation

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

Section 143(2) and 143(1) to the assessee. The assessing officer by an order dated 26.03.1999 passed an order of assessment and inter alia quantified the total taxable income at Rs.8,38,38,080/-. 100% Depreciation

The Commissioner of Income tax III, vs. Biraj Kavar Galada

The appeals are disposed of

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 to Section 115JA of the Act in the light of the judgment of the Apex Court in H.C.L. Comnet where is diminution in the value of assets as contended by the assessee

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 STATE BANK OF HYD. vs. THE JT.COMMI.SPL.RANGE IV HYD.

Bench: C.V. BHASKAR REDDY,UJJAL BHUYAN

143(1) of the Act; amend anf ir.rtimati< n under sub-section (l) of Section 200A of t-he Act; :rnd arr errd an-v intimation under sub-se cl-iorr (1) of Section 2O6t:L, ol the Act. In the facts of l.hr;.t case, this Court held I liit subsequent decision can valiclh. fc,rm the basis