The Commissioner of Income Tax-II, vs. M/s Padmapriya Real Estates AND Financiers

In the result, the appeal is allowed and the impugned judgment passed by

Bench: RAMESH RANGANATHAN,M.SATYANARAYANA MURTHY

17. PW-6, Mohamadd Umar Khan has proved the document Ex.P/12 which relates to the bank account opening form of the appellant at Bilaspur Raipur Regional Rural Bank Branch Aamdi, District Raipur. He admitted that on 24.11.1994, the total Rs. 404/- was balance in the said account. 18. PW-7, Neeraj Parihar has proved the document Ex.P/14 in which

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

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

Commissioner of Income Tax vs. Sri P.Sarveswara Rao

Appeals are partly allowed, in view of the

Bench: RAMESH RANGANATHAN,M.SATYANARAYANA MURTHY

d) The assessee‟s reference to several judgements of the High Courts and judgment of Supreme Court in the case of PJ Chemicals is not relevant as the issue before the courts was determination of “Actual Cost” of capital assets for the purpose of grant of depreciation and not the grant of deduction in respect of Sales-tax collections which

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

depreciation 8 and notional interest, which would amount to setting aside the entire order of assessment. It was further held that since, there was no order to pass a fresh order of assessment, therefore, the order giving effect to the findings of the tribunal was not barred by limitation under Section 153(2A) of the Act. 5. The aforesaid order

AP. STATE SEEDS DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION, HYD. vs. THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-I, HYD.

Bench: C.V. BHASKAR REDDY,UJJAL BHUYAN

depreciation which woul l be required to be set off against the profit I / 8 of the relevant previous year as if the provisions of clause (b) of the first proviso to sub-section (1) of Section 205 of the Companies Act, 1956 (1 of 1956), are applicable. (2) Nothing contained in sub-section (l) sha.ll a-ffect the determination

The Commissioner of Income Tax - IV vs. M/s. Mekins Agro Product (P) Ltd.

5-P (LXX-6) of 1968, dated July 19, 1968, reads: Where the trust derives income from house 8. property, interest on securities, capital gains, or other sources, the word 'income' should be understood in its commercial sense, i.e., book income, after adding back any appropriations or applications thereof towards the purpose of the trust or otherwise, and also after

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

Principal Commissioner of Income Tax - 5 vs. M/s Vijay Textiles Limited

The appeal is dismissed

Bench: RAMESH RANGANATHAN,M.SATYANARAYANA MURTHY

d) At the time of execution of conveyance deed? 17. Taking up each of these questions, in a sequential manner, first we will check whether there was any AOP. For this it is required to have a look at the legal parameters, which can throw light as to under what circumstances existence of an AOP can be substantiated. Section

The Commissioner of Income Tax-IV vs. Nekkanti Sea Foods Limited

The appeal is dismissed without any order as to costs

Bench: P.SAM KOSHY,NARSING RAO NANDIKONDA

D E R % 25.04.2012 Revenue in this appeal under Section 260A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (Act) impugns the order dated 17th June, 2011 passed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (tribunal) in the case of Imperial Fasteners Pvt. Ltd., the respondent-assessee. The appeal pertains to the assessment year 2006-07. 2. Having heard learned counsel

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

17 I have considered the arguments of the Id. Counsels, which are based on facts. I have also considered the legal decisions relied upon the arguments of the AO are also considered. The findings in the assessment order and the inference drawn in the penalty order have also been perused. The appellant in its return of income

Commissioner of Income-Tax, vs. Rangaraya Medical College Old Students Association

Bench: RAMESH RANGANATHAN,M.SATYANARAYANA MURTHY

D, Green Fields, FuliakulamRoad'coimbatore*41045' ...RESpoNDENT/pETrroNER 2. Andhra Pradesh Gas Power Corporation Ltd, #201, 2nd Floor, Ivly Home Sarovar Plaza, Secretariat Road, Hyderabad, rep. by its Managing Director' ...RES'.NDENT/RE.'.NDENT 2. Andhra Pradesh Gas Power Corpn. Ltd., #201, 2nd Floor, My Home Sarovar Plaza, Secretariat Road Hyderabad- 500 063. ...RESPONDENT/RESPONDENT l.A. NO: 1 OF 200 S(WAMP

Commissioner of Income Tax vs. Mohan Milk Line Pvt Ltd

The appeals are allowed only to the aforesaid

Bench: RAMESH RANGANATHAN,M.SATYANARAYANA MURTHY

D G M E N T As in both the appeals, common questions are to be considered with common facts, they are being considered simultaneously. 2. Admit. 3. Mr.K.V.Arvind, learned counsel, waives notice for admission on behalf of respondents and appeals are finally heard. 4. In ITA.No.252/2014, appellant – revenue has preferred the present appeals, by raising the following substantial

The Commissioner of Income Tax-IV vs. M/s.Mold-Tek Technologies Ltd

Bench: RAMESH RANGANATHAN,M.SATYANARAYANA MURTHY

D. KARIA   Date : 17/02/2020   ORAL JUDGMENT   (PER : HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE J.B.PARDIWALA) 1. This Tax Appeal under Section 260A of the Income Tax Act, 1961, is at the instance of the Revenue and is directed against Page 1 of 24 C/TAXAP/273/2011                                                                                                 JUDGMENT the order passed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, 'A' Bench, Ahmedabad, dated 5th August 2010, in the ITA No.1835/Ahd/2010

THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX III, vs. M/S. SAVIJANA SEA FOODS PVT. LTD.,

Appeals of the Revenue are dismissed

Bench: J SREENIVAS RAO,ALOK ARADHE

D G M E N T Dr. S. Muralidhar, J.: 1. These are 11 appeals under Section 260-A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 („Act‟) of which 1 is by the Assessee and 10 are by the Revenue. Apart from the facts being similar, the questions of law too are common to many of the appeals. They are accordingly

Commissioner of Income Tax, vs. M/s. Kokivenkateswara Reddy AND others,

Appeals of the Revenue are dismissed

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

D G M E N T Dr. S. Muralidhar, J.: 1. These are 11 appeals under Section 260-A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 („Act‟) of which 1 is by the Assessee and 10 are by the Revenue. Apart from the facts being similar, the questions of law too are common to many of the appeals. They are accordingly

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

The appeals are dismissed

Bench: P.SAM KOSHY,NARSING RAO NANDIKONDA

depreciation. In the light of the aforesaid particulars, the Assessing - - 11 Authority held that the assessee has let out the buildings and also provides several amenities. The provision of amenities is governed by a separate agreement or separate rates in a common agreement at which such services are charged. Accordingly, the consideration in respect of these two transactions are distinct

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