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

The appeals are dismissed

Bench: P.SAM KOSHY,NARSING RAO NANDIKONDA

22 and also buildings, and the letting of the buildings is inseparable from the letting of the said machinery, plant or furniture, the income from such letting, if it is not chargeable to income-tax under the head "Profits and gains of business or profession"; 13. Section 80IA of the Act was inserted by the Finance Act 2/1991 with effect

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

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

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 :-

2(11) of the Act, 1961 to mean a group of assets falling within a class of assets comprising (a) tangible assets being building, machinery, plant or furniture; (b) intangible assets being knowhow, patents, copyrights, 20 trademarks, licences, franchises or any other business or commercial rights of similar nature in respect of which the same percentage of depreciation is prescribed

THE STATE BANK OF HYD. vs. THE JT.COMMI.SPL.RANGE IV HYD.

Bench: C.V. BHASKAR REDDY,UJJAL BHUYAN

22. It is ir the above backdrop that the -rrcier ol the Tribunal dat.d 23.02.2001 refusing to rectif',, r.hc p:evic,us order dated : 2 10.1997 is required to be consi,::red 23. Let us now advert to Section 254 of tht: Acl rvhich deals rvith o ders of Appellate Tribunal. Siub :.e,::tion (2) of Section

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

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

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

Bench: RAMESH RANGANATHAN,M.SATYANARAYANA MURTHY

Section 16 of the Reforms Act, was granted. The order passed by the APERC was upheld by a Bench of this Court by an order dated 08.O6.2O01 in C.M.A.No.L97I of 2OOO and other connected matters- 10. Against the aforesaid order passed by a Bench of tltis Court, a Special Leave Peti(ion was preferred. 11. The Honble Supreme

Commissioner of Inccome Tax vs. Agricultural Market Committee

In the result, the appeal filed by the revenue

Bench: : The Hon’Ble Justice T.S. Sivagnanam & The Hon’Ble Justice Hiranmay Bhattacharyya Date : 16Th March, 2023 Appearance : Mr. Smarajit Roychowdhury, Adv. ...For The Appellant. Mr. J. P. Khaitan, Sr. Adv. Mr. Sanjoy Bhowmick, Adv. Ms. Swapna Das, Adv. ...For The Respondent. The Court : This Appeal Filed By The Revenue Under Section 260A Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (The ‘Act’ For Brevity) Is Directed Against The Order Dated 30Th November, 2010 Passed By The Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, “A” Bench, Kolkata (The Tribunal) In Ita No.368 & 369/Kol/2010 Years 2005- 06 & 2006-07. The Revenue Has Raised The Following Substantial Questions Of Law For Consideration:

Section 2(22)(e) of the Income Tax Act ? We have heard Mr. Smarajit Roychowdhury, learned standing counsel appearing for the appellant/revenue and Mr. J. P. Khaitan, learner Senior Counsel assisted by Mr. Sanjoy Bhowmick and Ms. Swapna Das, learned Advocates for the respondent/assessee. It is not in dispute that the tax effect for the assessment year

Commissioner of Income Tax vs. Mohan Milk Line Pvt Ltd

The appeals are allowed only to the aforesaid

Bench: RAMESH RANGANATHAN,M.SATYANARAYANA MURTHY

depreciation and the adjustment against the income of the respective assessment year, was at large to be considered. The peculiar circumstances in the case are that in the earlier round of litigation, the question - 8 - of entitlement was considered and further, the computation thereof was indirectly deemed as concluded. The order of the CIT (Appeals) can be considered in light

Commissioner of Income Tax-III vs. Sri N.Sai Baba Naidu

Bench: J SREENIVAS RAO,ALOK ARADHE

2)(iii) were applicable and that the letting out of the machinery, ITA 319/2012 Page 3 of 9 plant and furniture and the letting out of buildings were inseparable and therefore the rental income was chargeable to tax under the residual head. According to him, it was the intention of the parties that the letting should be a composite letting

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

The appeals are disposed of

Bench: RAMESH RANGANATHAN,M.SATYANARAYANA MURTHY

22,862/- in accordance with RBI guidelines and accounting employed which had been accepted earlier cannot be treated as the income of the assessee? (ii) Whether the Tribunal was correct in failing to appreciate Section 43D of the Act and Section36(1)(vii) read with Section 36(2)(i) of the Act which contemplated treating the said amount as income

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

Commissioner of IncomeTax-2, vs. Mr. Mustafa Alam Khan,

Appeal is allowed

Bench: SANJAY KUMAR,GUDISEVA SHYAM PRASAD

2 of 1886), was in force: 10 (c)in the case of any block of assets,- (i)in respect of any previous year relevant to the assessment year commencing on the 1st day of April, 1988, the aggregate of the written down values of all the assets falling within that block of assets at the beginning of the previous year

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

The appeal is dismissed

Bench: RAMESH RANGANATHAN,M.SATYANARAYANA MURTHY

Section 110 of the Act, if an AOP is chargeable to tax at maximum marginal rate then the share of profits in the hands of the members is not chargeable to tax at all. 19. Now against the above contours of taxability of an AOP, we have to see the facts of the case before us. The first

Commissioner of Income Tax vs. Sri P.Sarveswara Rao

Appeals are partly allowed, in view of the

Bench: RAMESH RANGANATHAN,M.SATYANARAYANA MURTHY

2. The main order- in the case of the assessee/respondent, Bhushan Steel, was made for AY 1995-96 and was followed in all succeeding assessment years; the same is the case with the appeals relating to the other assessee, M/s. Vardhman Industries Ltd. [hereafter “Vardhman”] – where the ITAT followed its decision in M/s. Bhushan Steels and Strips Ltd. [hereafter “Bhushan

The Commissioner of Income Tax- I vs. M/s. Avon Organics Limited

Bench: GODA RAGHURAM,M.S.RAMACHANDRA RAO

22 Office Maintenance 23724 23 Transportation charges 628284 24 Stationery 18375 25 Lease Line Charges 274331 26 Telephone Expenses 68182 27. Printing Charges 7350 28. Travelling Expenses International 7732 ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Total Expenses pertaining to April & May 04 5902448/- ” This break-up was noticed in the assessment order itself and is not disputed. 6. What is clearly noticeable is that the appellant

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

2(14) is not a word of art but a word of commercial implication. The bottom line is the availability of assets, activities carried out for exploiting the assets and that the assessee is not a mere onlooker in the activities of the company or a passive recipient of rent for utilization of facilities. 18. Applying the above ratio