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

The appeal is dismissed

depreciation was ordered to be charged on it. Rs.7650/- were added to the income of the assessee on account of telephone expenses, as the assessee admitted the expenditure incurred on account of telephones installed at residences. Further addition of Rs.2,00,000/- was made on account of sale of rice, as no stock was maintained by the assessee quality wise

Commissioner of Income Tax (TDS) vs. M/s. Yashoda Super Speciality Hospital

In the result, the appeal fails

depreciation of Assessment Years 1988-89 and 1989-90 amounting Rs.72,02,83,028/-, the income was determined to be ‘NIL’. The Commissioner in exercise of powers under Section 263 of the Act vide order dated 12.11.2007 held that the order of assessment dated 26.12.2012 is erroneous and prejudicial to the interest of revenue and consequently set aside the same

COMM.OF INCOMETAX AP I HYD vs. M/S.DIAMOND HATCHERIES P.LTD HYD

3. In so far as Question No.(ii) quoted above is concerned in ITA No.49 of 2001 and similar question claimed in ITA No.187 of 2002, the same being not a substantial question of law, is, thus, declined. 4. A few facts relevant for the decision of the controversy involved as narrated in ITA No.49 of 2001 may be noticed

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