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

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 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

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

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

ii) Whether under the facts in the circumstances of the case the Tribunal was right in law in upholding the order of the CIT (A) of cancelling the penalty of Rs. 99,68,280/- levied u/s 271(1)(c) on account of inaccurate particulars furnished by assessee in original return and detected by the Assessing Officer during scrutiny u/s 143

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 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

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. M/s Pokarna Limited

The appeals are dismissed

Bench: P.SAM KOSHY,NARSING RAO NANDIKONDA

ii) allow the appeal and set-aside the orders passed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Bangalore in I.T.A. No.41/Bang/2010 dated 31.05.2011 and confirm the order passed by the Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-11(3), Bangalore in the interest of justice and equity. These I.T.As. coming on for hearing, this day, N.Kumar J., delivered the following: JUDGMENT

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

Bench: RAMESH RANGANATHAN,M.SATYANARAYANA MURTHY

ii) standard assets (iii) 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 of Section 115JA of the Act in the light of the judgment of the Apex court in H.C.L. Comnet when there is diminution in the value of assets

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

The appeals are disposed of

Bench: RAMESH RANGANATHAN,M.SATYANARAYANA MURTHY

ii) standard assets (iii) 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

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

ii) Whether the Assessing Officer who passed an order dated 15.12.2009 was only giving effect to the order passed by the Tribunal dated 31.07.2006 and this order fell within Section 153(3) of the Act 5 and not under Section 153(2A) of the Act as held by the Tribunal? 2. For the facility of reference, facts from ITA No.370/2011

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

PROGREESIVE CONSTRUCTIONS LIMITED vs. JT. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX

Bench: C.V. BHASKAR REDDY,UJJAL BHUYAN

ii. Whether there is any changc bctween the earlier provisions of Section 147 of Incomc Tax Act and the new provisions o[ that Section substitutecl with effect from .i2:: 1.. 01.04.1989 in regard to the scope of words'reason to believe' appearing in the section ? iii. \fltr':ther the lncome Tax Appellate Tribunal is justified in law in disallowing

Commissioner of Income Tax vs. Agricultural Market Committee

In the result we do not find any merit in the appeal

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

1), BANGALORE ... APPELLANTS (By Sri.E.I.SANMATHI, ADV.,) AND: M/S NCR CORPORATION PVT LTD 11, 3RD FLOOR, NITON BUILDING, PALACE ROAD,BANGALORE42 ... RESPONDENT (By Sri.T.SURYANARAYANA, ADV.) - - - THIS ITA IS FILED UNDER SECTION 260-A OF I.T.ACT, 1961 ARISING OUT OF THE ORDER DATED 28.02.2011 PASSED IN ITA NO.353/BANG/2010 FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2 2003-04, PRAYING THAT THIS HON’BLE COURT

The Commissioner of Income Tax IV vs. Margadarshi Chit Fund Pvt. Ltd.,

The appeal is dismissed

1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH ITA-228-2013 (O&M) Date of decision:- 01.03.2023 Mahavir Rice Mills ....Appellant vs. Commissioner of Income Tax, Karnal ...Respondent CORAM: HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE RITU BAHRI HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE MANISHA BATRA Present: Mr. Pankaj Jain, Sr. Advocate Mr. Divya Suri, Advocate for the appellant. Ms. Gauri

The Commissioner of income Tax-II vs. M/s.Ideal Industrial Explosives Ltd

Bench: RAMESH RANGANATHAN,M.SATYANARAYANA MURTHY

1) which reads: “(g) the amount or amounts set aside as provision for diminution in the value of any asset” is not disallowance of Rs.8,61,53,052/- towards provision for bad debts made under section 36(ii) (viia) while calculating the book profit under section 115JA in accordance with law?” In fact, the specific stand of the Assessing Officer