Dr.V.Suryanarayana Reddy vs. The Asst. Commissioner of Income Tax

iii). Thus, mainly “tea” has been made liable to tax under the charging Section 3 of the Act of 1944. 9. The word “tea” has not been defined under the Act of 1944. Therefore, to find out the meaning of the word “tea” as used in Section 3 of the Act of 1944, common parlance test may be applied

COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-III, HYD vs. M/S. SUJANA METALS LTD, HYD

Bench: P.SAM KOSHY,NARSING RAO NANDIKONDA

depreciation is prescribed”. 8. It can also be said that the „right to carry on any business‟ has been recognized by the legislature as capital asset for the purposes of assessing and computing the capital gains as is clear from the reading of Section 55 (2) (a) of the Act, which is in the following terms:- (2) For the purposes

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

2(45) of the Income-tax Act defines total income as ―the total amount of income referred to in section 5, computed in the manner laid down in this Act‖. Section 4 provides for charge of income-tax. Section 5 defines the scope of total income. Section 5 (1) states that subject to the provisions of the Act, the total

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

The appeals are dismissed

Bench: P.SAM KOSHY,SUDDALA CHALAPATHI RAO

14. With regard to the issue of rectification proceedings, it was submitted that the provisions are clear. There is no scope for debate. Moreover, the provisions being mandatory and automatic, there is no question of waiver. That being the position, it was submitted, if ITA Nos. 402/2005 & Others Page No.16 of 44 interest under section 234B or 234C

Commissioner of Income Tax, vs. Dr. T.Ravi Kumar,

Bench: : The Hon’Ble Justice Surya Prakash Kesarwani & The Hon’Ble Justice Rajarshi Bharadwaj Date : 10Th April, 2024. Appearance: Mr. J. P. Khaitan, Senior Advocate Mr. Sanjay Bhowmick, Advocate Ms. Swapna Das, Advocate … For The Appellant. Ms. Smita Das De, Advocate … For The Respondent. 1. Heard Sri J. P. Khaitan, Learned Senior Advocate Assisted By Sri Sanjay Bhowmick, Learned Counsel For The Appellant/Assessee & Ms. Smita Das De, Learned Senior Standing Counsel For The Respondent. 2. The Assessment Years Involved In The Present Appeal Are Assessment Year 1999-2000 & Assessment Year 2000-01. By Order Dated 16.08.2012, This Appeal Was Admitted On The Following Substantial Questions Of Law :-

III, KOLKATA BEFORE : THE HON’BLE JUSTICE SURYA PRAKASH KESARWANI AND THE HON’BLE JUSTICE RAJARSHI BHARADWAJ Date : 10th April, 2024. Appearance: Mr. J. P. Khaitan, Senior Advocate Mr. Sanjay Bhowmick, Advocate Ms. Swapna Das, Advocate … for the appellant. Ms. Smita Das De, Advocate … for the respondent. 1. Heard Sri J. P. Khaitan, learned senior advocate assisted by Sri Sanjay

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

Bench: RAMESH RANGANATHAN,M.SATYANARAYANA MURTHY

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 as contended

Commissioner of Income Tax vs. Mohan Milk Line Pvt Ltd

The appeals are allowed only to the aforesaid

Bench: RAMESH RANGANATHAN,M.SATYANARAYANA MURTHY

III STAGE, BANGALORE – 560 085. ... APPELLANTS (BY SRI: K.V. ARAVIND, ADVOCATE) AND: M/S. IBM INDIA PVT. LTD., (EARLIER KNOWN AS IBM GLOBAL SERVICES), BANNERGHATTA MAIN ROAD, BANGALORE – 560 029. ... RESPONDENT (BY SRI: PERCY PARDIWALLA, SENIOR ADVOCATE, FOR SRI. T. SURYANARAYANA, ADVOCATE) ***** THIS ITA IS FILED UNDER SEC.260-A OF INCOME TAX ACT 1961, ARISING OUT OF ORDER DATED 24.01.2014 PASSED

PROGREESIVE CONSTRUCTIONS LIMITED vs. JT. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX

Bench: C.V. BHASKAR REDDY,UJJAL BHUYAN

2. This appeal under Section 260-A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (briefly 'the Act' hereinafter) has been prefened by the assessee against the order darcd 30.12.2004 passed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Hyderabad Bench 'A, Hlderabad (Tribunal) in I.T.A.No.262/Hyd/1999 for the assessment )€ar 1990-9t. 3. On 29.08.2005, the appeal was admitted on the following

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

2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988. The appellant denied the charge and claimed trial. 4. In order to prove the charge against the appellant, the prosecution has examined as many as 36 witnesses. The statement of the accused appellant under Section 313 of Cr.P.C. has also been recorded in which he denied the circumstances appears against him, plead

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

III STAGE BANGALORE. ... APPELLANTS (By Sri.K.V.ARAVIND, ADV.,) AND: M/S ASTRA ZENECA PHARMA INDIA LTD. P.B.NO.2483 OFF BELLARY ROAD HEBBAL BANGALORE. ... RESPONDENT (By Sri.S.PARTHASARATHI SMT.JINITA CHATTERJEE, ADV.) - - - 3 THIS ITA IS FILED UNDER SECTION 260-A OF I.T. ACT, 1961 ARISING OUT OF ORDER DATED 29.09.2011 PASSED IN ITA NO.1202/BANG/2010 FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 1996-97, PRAYING THAT THIS

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-I vs. Ascend Telecom Infrastructure Private Limited

Bench: RAMESH RANGANATHAN,M.SATYANARAYANA MURTHY

2. The suggested substantial question of law in the memo of appeal of Revenue is quoted herein below for ready reference:- Date of Judgment 14-08-2018 I.T.A.No.346/2015 Commissioner of Income Tax & another Vs. M/s Academy of Liberal Education 3/21 “1.Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal is right in law in holding

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

The appeals are disposed of

Bench: RAMESH RANGANATHAN,M.SATYANARAYANA MURTHY

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 as contended

THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX - II vs. M/s. E.C.I. Engineering AND Construction Co. Ltd.,

In the result, the appeal is dismissed

III STAGE BANGALORE-560085. ... APPELLANTS (BY SRI. M. DILIP, A/W SRI. K.V. ARAVIND, ADVS.) AND: M/S. MIND TREE LTD. (FORMERLY M/S. MIND TREE CONSULTING PRIVATE LTD.), GLOBAL VILLAGE RVCE POST, MYLASANDRA MYSORE ROAD, BANGALORE. ... RESPONDENT (BY SRI. CHYTHANYA K.K. ADV.) - - - THIS I.T.A. IS FILED UNDER SECTION 260-A OF I.T. ACT, 1961, ARISING OUT OF ORDER DATED 14

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

The appeal is dismissed

2 were completed and addition of Rs.1,01,016/- was made and keeping in view the provisions of Section 40 (a) (ia) of the Act 1961 payment of Rs.1,01,016/- made to Satake India Engg (P) Ltd on account of AMC was disallowed. Further Rs.56,650/- incurred on purchase of UPS held to be capitalized and depreciation was ordered

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

iii). Whether the finding of the Tribunal that the Appellant had a PE in India is perverse and contrary to the facts and material on record? (iv). Whether, without prejudice, the Tribunal erred in attributing 50% of the alleged profits to the alleged PE of the Appellant in India and whether such approach and quantification was inconsistent with Article

The Commissioner of Income Tax (Central) vs. Hetero Labs Ltd

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

Bench: RAMESH RANGANATHAN,M.SATYANARAYANA MURTHY

III of Schedule VII to the Companies Act, 1956 (1 of 1956) Explanation 1.—For the purposes of this section, “book profit” means the net profit as shown in the profit and loss account for the relevant previous year prepared under sub- section (2), as increased by— (a) the amount of income-tax paid or payable, and the provision therefor

The Commissioner of Income Tax V vs. Smt. Ch. Uma

iii) Whether the amount of Rs.1,25,12,348/- claimed as quality loss paid by the assessee to M/s. Apollo Tyres Limited is liable to be deducted? 3. The assessee is a tyre manufacturing company, earlier known as Premier Tyres Ltd. and later renamed as M/s.PTL. It was incorporated on 29.10.1959 with the object of carrying on the business