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

The appeals are dismissed

Bench: P.SAM KOSHY,SUDDALA CHALAPATHI RAO

depreciation. The rate of minimum tax was kept at a modest figure deeming 30 per cent of book profits as total income. This modest amount is likely to go down further with the downward revision of corporate tax rate to 35 per cent and abolition of surcharge. xxxx xxxx xxxx xxxx 45.4 The Act also inserts a new section 115JAA

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

Bench: RAMESH RANGANATHAN,M.SATYANARAYANA MURTHY

3 year 2006-07 as contained in Clause 2(q) thereof. The Assessing Officer made an aggregate addition of Rs.20,28,885/- as unexplained income on the ground that plant and machinery shown in the balance sheet on 31st March, 2004 was to the tune of Rs.21,58,400/- whereas the same was shown as on 1st April

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

Bench: RAMESH RANGANATHAN,M.SATYANARAYANA MURTHY

3) of section 143 or this section has been made for the relevant assessment year, no action shall be taken under this section after the expiry of four years from the end of the relevant assessment year, unless any income chargeable to tax has escaped assessment for such assessment year by reason of the failure on the part

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

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

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

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

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); was registered as EOU in Noida Special Economic Zone and eligible for deduction under Section 10B of the Act. This

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

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

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

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

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

3. The Assessee filed its return of income on 31.10.2006 admitting a total income of Rs.nil. The return of Income was processed under Section 143(1) by the Income Tax Officer, Mandya. The case was selected for scrutiny in accordance with the scrutiny guidelines issued by the Central Board of Direct Taxes. Notice under Section 143(2) was issued

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

Bench: RAMESH RANGANATHAN,M.SATYANARAYANA MURTHY

ii) (viia) while calculating the book profit under section 115JA in accordance with law?” In fact, the specific stand of the Assessing Officer (AO) and the Revenue in the statutory appeal was that ITAs3/2010 & conns. -16 in computing minimum alternate tax payable under Section 115JA, the provision for bad and doubtful debts has to be added back under clause

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

M/s.CCL Products [India] Limited vs. The Commissioner of Income Tax-I

143(3) of the Act vide order dated 31.12.2007 (Annexure A-I) at an income of ` 60,410/-. On 25.3.2004, an inspection was conducted by the team of Central Excise Department in the business premises of the assessee. On the basis of the information received from the Central Excise Department, Commissioner of Income Tax (CIT) vide order dated 20.11.2008 (Annexure

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

The appeal is dismissed

143 (3) for the assessment year 2007-2008 on 07.09.2009 (A-2). On 29.11.2010, the proceedings GAURAV ARORA 2023.04.03 10:37 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/document P&H HC, Chandigarh ITA-228-2013 2023:PHHC:047619-DB 2 were completed and addition of Rs.1,01,016/- was made and keeping in view the provisions

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- V, vs. Dr. M.Venkataramana,

Bench: The Commissioner Of Income Tax. After Considering The Plus & Minus Points, The Appeal Was Finalised, Whereby Some Points Were

Section 143(3) of the Income Tax Act by the Assessing Officer as per order dated 10.01.2002, assessing a total income of Rs.5,79,77,070/- and fixing the tax liability accordingly. This is sought to be challenged by the Assessee by filing appeal before the Commissioner of Income Tax. After considering the plus and minus points, the appeal