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

depreciation of 20% after two years. In cross- examination he admitted that he has not attached any Government circular with respect to the valuation of the construction. He further stated that at the time of preparing the first report, he was not informed about the check period and when the check period was informed by the Lokayukta Police, he prepared

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

Appeal is allowed

Bench: SANJAY KUMAR,GUDISEVA SHYAM PRASAD

depreciation of Rs.6,30,834/-.The net addition of the difference of Rs. 18,92,500/- is therefore upheld. Grounds 3.1 to 3.3 also fail.” (emphasis supplied) 17. The Tribunal, by its order dated 8.9.2016 while considering the contention regarding the deduction claimed with regard to the expenditure incurred towards trademark has, after noticing paras

Commissioner of Income Tax vs. Mohan Milk LIne Pvt Ltd

Bench: RAMESH RANGANATHAN,M.SATYANARAYANA MURTHY

20%, in the Assessment Year 2008-09. The Tribunal held that there is no restriction in the Income Tax Act from availing balance of one-time-incentive in the form of additional sum of depreciation in the subsequent year. 4.2 Learned Senior Counsel appearing for the assessee refers to and relies on the judgments in Commissioner of Income- tax, Madurai

The Commissioner of Income Tax-1 vs. Harmahendar Singh Bagga

Bench: CHALLA KODANDA RAM,G.CHANDRAIAH

20%, in the Assessment Year 2009-10. The Tribunal held that there is no restriction in the Income Tax Act from availing balance of one-time-incentive in the form of additional sum of depreciation in the subsequent year. 4.2 Learned Senior Counsel appearing for the assessee refers to and relies on the judgments in Commissioner of Income- tax, Madurai

The Commissioner of Income Tax-IV, vs. Mars TelecomSystems (P) Limited

Bench: RAMESH RANGANATHAN,M.SATYANARAYANA MURTHY

depreciation allowance or any other allowance under this Act has been computed; (ca) where a return of income has not been furnished by the assessee or a return of income has been furnished by him and on the basis of information or document received from the prescribed income-tax authority, under sub-section (2) of section 133C, it is noticed

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

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

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

20,496/- for the assessment years 1987-88 and 1988-89 respectively which was calculated by the appellant as per the provisions of law as both the deductions were independent claims. The Assessing Officer allowed claim under Section 32AB of the Act but allowed deduction under Section 80I of the Act amounting

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

20. I am inclined to accept the plea of the appellant that at the time of assessment the AO did not initiate penalty on claim of depreciation on guest house, etc. In the case of CIT vs. Jai Bharat Maruti Ltd. (2007) 212 CTR (Del>)250, the High Court has held that recording of satisfaction by AO is sine

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

The appeals are dismissed

Bench: P.SAM KOSHY,NARSING RAO NANDIKONDA

20 D.—Profits and gains of business or profession. E.—Capital gains. F.—Income from other sources. 10. Section 22 of the Act deals with income from House property which reads as under: Income from house property. 22. The annual value of property consisting of any buildings or lands appurtenant thereto of which the assessee is the owner, other than

The Comissioner of Income Tax III, vs. Smt. Shanti Singh,

Bench: RAMESH RANGANATHAN,M.SATYANARAYANA MURTHY

depreciation of section 32;] g s f f s n d e r h n n d l e f r f r d n VARINDER SINGH 2024.11.14 14:36 I attest to the accuracy and authencity of this order/judgment ITA N 5. interpreted b considered b and relatable information a evidence whi officer has an relatable to s Therefore

Commissioner of Income Tax vs. Sri P.Sarveswara Rao

Appeals are partly allowed, in view of the

Bench: RAMESH RANGANATHAN,M.SATYANARAYANA MURTHY

depreciation and not the grant of deduction in respect of Sales-tax collections which had not been paid in accordance with the provisions of sec.43-B of the IT Act. (e) No objection on the issue whether the assessee‟s industrial undertaking was set up in a backward area, notified by the Central Govt. for the purpose of benefit under provisions

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. 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

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

Bench: C.V. BHASKAR REDDY,UJJAL BHUYAN

20. At this stage, we may also refer to sub-section (4) of Section 26OA of the Act which says that the appeal shal1 be heard only on the question so formulated and the respondent shall at the hearing of the appeal, be allowed to argue that the case does not involve such question. As per the proviso, nothing

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

20:- 21. There is nothing on record to indicate that there is any element of compensation involved. Even after granting opportunities to the assessee to show the existence of any compensatory element in the penalty, the assessee could not show the existence of such an element in the penalty. In fact, the Tribunal had also observed that the working sheets

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

20:- 21. There is nothing on record to indicate that there is any element of compensation involved. Even after granting opportunities to the assessee to show the existence of any compensatory element in the penalty, the assessee could not show the existence of such an element in the penalty. In fact, the Tribunal had also observed that the working sheets

Commissioner of Income Tax - VI vs. M/s. S.P. Steels

20:- 21. There is nothing on record to indicate that there is any element of compensation involved. Even after granting opportunities to the assessee to show the existence of any compensatory element in the penalty, the assessee could not show the existence of such an element in the penalty. In fact, the Tribunal had also observed that the working sheets