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

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:

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 2006-07 is below

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

Bench: C.V. BHASKAR REDDY,UJJAL BHUYAN

depreciation allowancc to the l8 assessees. Based upon the said Supreme Court decision, rectification orders were passed by the successor assessing authority. Whether a subsequent decision can be the basis for "rectifying" a.:n ea.rlier order in exercise of the powers under section 154 of the lncome-ta-x Act? Although the opening words of section 154(l) - "with

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

depreciation was not allowed. 5. The CIT (Appeals) affirmed the aforesaid findings given by the Assessing Officer. 6. In the second appeal before the tribunal, it has been held that the expenditure incurred was a revenue expense and should be allowed. ITA 160/2012 Page 3 of 10 7. It is an undisputed fact that the respondent-assessee had entered into

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

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

The appeal is dismissed

Bench: RAMESH RANGANATHAN,M.SATYANARAYANA MURTHY

31) of the Act has obviated the requirement for having, production of income, profits or gains, as an essential object for forming an AOP. However the CBDT Circular explaining the above insertion states that such insertion was only to take care of the claim of certain bodies that they did not fall within the definition of a ‘person

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

Bench: RAMESH RANGANATHAN,M.SATYANARAYANA MURTHY

31, Urdugalli, Pathergafti, Hyderabad 500 002 rep by its Managing Director Sri Kantilal Agarwal. ...RESPONDENTS/RESPONDENTS l.A. NO: 1 OF 2004(WAMP. NO:3911 0F 2004) Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the.petition, the High Court may be pleased Direct the respondent 1 to 3 not to disconnect

INCOME TAX BANGALORE vs. SHALINI BHUPAL

Appeal is dismissed

31-03-1989, relevant for the assessment year 1989-90, the return of income was filed by the respondent-assessee declaring Rs.53,93,390/- as income. The assessee manufactured and sold rubber patches for tyre, tubes, uniseals etc. By order dated 13-03-1992 the Assessing Officer inter alia held that deduction under Section 80-I could be allowed

PROGREESIVE CONSTRUCTIONS LIMITED vs. JT. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX

Bench: C.V. BHASKAR REDDY,UJJAL BHUYAN

31-03-1997 in PAN/GIR No. P-2. Between: Progreesive Constructions Limited, Represented Managing Director 7th Floor, "Raghava" North Block, Abids, HYDERABAD. by K. Bhaskara Rao, R.R. Towers, C.A. Lane, ...APPELLANT Jt. Commissioner of income tax, Jt. Commissioner of lncome Tax Special Range - 3, Hyderabad. ...RESPONDENT AND Counsel for the Appellant : SRI CHALLA GUNARANJAN Counsel for the Respondents

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

31 ITD 117 wherein the provisions of sections 80AB and Section 80HH were considered. The Tribunal observed that Section 80HH is made subject to the provision of Section 80AB and does not operate in isolation or independent of that section. The Tribunal also observed that it has been clarified by categorical provisions made in section 80AB that the deduction should

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

31-03-2002 should have been deducted? 2. Facts leading to filing of this appeal briefly stated are that the assessee is a company engaged in the business of generation of power. According to the assessee, it continuously ran into losses since its inception and borrowed an amount from Indian Renewable Energy Development Agency (IREDA). However, the assessee neither repaid

COMR. OF IT HYD vs. M/S NEERAJ PETRO CHEMICALS LTD HYD

The appeal is partly allowed

2 of 8 O/TAXAP/382/2000 JUDGMENT in the business of manufacturer and sale of various Dyes, Chemicals, etc. It also manufactures certain items for industries engaged in explosives and agro-chemicals. 4. The assessee-company filed its return of income on 30.12.1991 for the A.Y. 1991-92 declaring total income at Rs. “Nil”. Assessment scrutiny was undertaken and ultimately, the Assessing

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 Income Tax vs. Sri P.Sarveswara Rao

Appeals are partly allowed, in view of the

Bench: RAMESH RANGANATHAN,M.SATYANARAYANA MURTHY

31, 1995, in the areas mentioned in Column 2 of Annexure I, not tax shall be payable or, as the case may be, the tax shall be payable at the reduced rates specified in Column 4 of Annexure I, by the manufacturer thereof for the period in Column 3 of the said Annexure I, or till the maximum amount

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

2, not everything that relates to stock can be added to its value. The following have to be „excluded from cost‟ and „recognized as expense‟: “(a) abnormal amounts of wasted materials, labour, or other production costs; (b) storage costs, unless those costs are necessary in the production process prior to a further production stage; (c) administrative overheads that

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

Appeals of the Revenue are dismissed

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

2, not everything that relates to stock can be added to its value. The following have to be „excluded from cost‟ and „recognized as expense‟: “(a) abnormal amounts of wasted materials, labour, or other production costs; (b) storage costs, unless those costs are necessary in the production process prior to a further production stage; (c) administrative overheads that

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

Commissioner of Income Tax vs. M/s Ch.Veeraju AND co.

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